IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Can this be the engine from United 175?

dMz
post Sep 30 2009, 09:05 AM
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



It is worth revisiting this photo again- it is from the first page of this thread, I believe but I did not note the post # and I have needed to restart the computer a few times since then.

http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/...ab/DSC07780.jpg



There is extensive cracking of the concrete visible in this photo. I would guess that is a "standard" 4-inch thick concrete sidewalk (but 6, 8, and 12 inches thick are also common pour thicknesses). The way that sidewalk has cracked, I am leaning toward a 4-inch thickness though.

Now in a freezing climate (like the NE Atlantic seaboard), ice is a likely culprit to crack concrete (and tree roots commonly do the same). I would think that a portion of a CFM56 turbofan falling from approx. 800 feet up could cause similar damage as well. The curious part is the scaffolding above/around this "debris" visible in some of the other photos from different angles.

In this "DSC07780" photo, I would estimate those sign/pole bases as a 4-inch square lightweight steel tube (stock from US steel suppliers is usually in 1/2 or 1-inch increments, and I would estimate those first 2 stands in my post #56 holding the various CFM56 engines as 2-inch square steel tube). I have been welding for nearly 30 years now, and I also own an engine hoist made of this same square tube, but in both 2" and 3" sizes, so I am reasonably certain on the square tubing sizes.

Here is an online steel tubing "line card" though:

http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/hrstee...cc=$LimAcc

From what I recall of those green reflective street signs, that "Murray" sign would also be very close to 4 inches high.

Now as to garbage cans or no, I would think that a tarp or two might have been available, even in "downtown?" Manhattan, and these come in many sizes. wink.gif

EDIT: Actually, there is a wire garbage can right next to the engine core portion at lunk's #55 above:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10774415




2011 - see also: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10800982
Reason for edit: added updated link to newer info
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Nov 27 2013, 08:36 PM
Post #62





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 30 2009, 08:05 AM) *
It is worth revisiting this photo again- it is from the first page of this thread, I believe but I did not note the post # and I have needed to restart the computer a few times since then.

...There is extensive cracking of the concrete visible in this photo. I would guess that is a "standard" 4-inch thick concrete sidewalk (but 6, 8, and 12 inches thick are also common pour thicknesses). The way that sidewalk has cracked, I am leaning toward a 4-inch thickness though.



Hi folks, I suppose this is as good a post as any to make my debut here.
First let me make it as clear as possible, I am a genuine truther. My exact viewpoints on the details of 9/11 will come to light in my future posts.

As Lunk has pointed out, there is an extended thread about this engine on another site, which after many months (or longer), concludes that the engine is from a 767.

Many here still don't realize that the engine didn't fall 700+ feet and land smack on the sidewalk.
It hit a building first, which had to have greatly cushioned its fall.

It then ricocheted onto the street/sidewalk where it was finally discovered.

I made an amazing discovery by accident a month or so ago which convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the engine came from the plane that hit WTC2. It all fits like a glove.

Do I know anything about engine types? No.
Do I know if the engine is from an 767? No. I'm just relying on that extensive thread where it was picked apart tooth and comb, and finally concluded to be a 767 engine.
Do I believe Flt. 175 hit WTC2? No.
I believe this engine came from another plane that hit the tower.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2013, 11:52 AM
Post #63





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,018
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



NP1Mike

I agree very much with what you say.

My guess is that the airplane was one from the batch delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a KC-767 project, and that might explain how the engine in question is non-standard for the type.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 1 2013, 05:11 PM
Post #64





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2013, 10:52 AM) *
My guess is that the airplane was one from the batch delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a KC-767 project, and that might explain how the engine in question is non-standard for the type.



I can go along with that. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JosephR
post Jun 12 2015, 03:52 PM
Post #65





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-November 14
Member No.: 7,994



Greetings everyone! It doesn't look like this threat is active. Yet it should be. I also noticed that nobody seems to have identified the engine type on Murray Street. As a former aircraft mechanic, let me offer my research and contributions. What I am about to tell you is solid, but it will take me a while to round up my evidence and post unto this board. Please be advised that I've been harassed quite a few times by someone via the Internet, and because I'm using the dreaded Windows 8.1, backdoor access to my PC is unfortunately easy; not sure if a difference is made with prior Windows based operating systems.

MURRAY STREET ENGINE

The engine found on Murray Street not a CFM-6 engine as some of the disinformation video's have been showing on YouTube. The engine is from an older 747 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A or earlier engine. The evidence is in the Tobi-Tube ducts found at the end of the core. These were discontinued in 1983 when an upgraded version became available known as the JT9D-7R4D. The "R" stands for "Radial" cooling duct which enabled higher HPT (High Pressure Turbine) speeds by reducing airflow drag. It also enhanced engine performance and efficiency. The engine on Murray Street cannot be a JT9D-7R4D because the tobi-tube ducts were not used; only the Radial ducts. Tobi-Tube ducts were only available on -7A/J/F engines and not the -7R4D. The Tobi-Tube duct information can be found on one of its manufacturers known as Chrome Alloy. I created an account there last year and searched for the Radial Duct PN/SN for applicability to the 7R4D. The results showed that the Tobi-Tube duct does not fit the -7R4D, and is ONLY available on the older 747 engines (-7A/J/F).

Flight United used strictly Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767's. Towards the end of the 80's, a new 4000 series engine became standard. The end-item hull number of the 767 that struck the tower I believe was a 1986 model. And United Airlines did not use 1970's engines on 1980's aircraft; the FAA would not allow such a thing. That being said, then who's aircraft was it? There are only two agencies that I'm aware of that are not bound by FAA rules; that's NASA and the CIA. Thus it is my strongest opinion that the CIA in conjunction with Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) took an old 767 out of mothball, used 747 engines since the aircraft would not be carrying heavy luggage or passenger loads, and was turned into a drone aircraft. I believe the CIA conducted the 911 attacks, and I don't believe members of the USAF were aware of it, although some might have been informed.

The DoD generated a 911 style plan during the John F. Kennedy Presidency known as Operation Northwoods. O.N. involved a hijacking scenario of a plane with college students intended to be shot down over Cuba, giving the needed propaganda to start a war against Cuba. But JFK refused to allow the US to start wars as such. A real plane containing CIA actors (passengers) was to take off somewhere and land in Florida, while a drone aircraft would cross flight path spaces with the real jet, and the drone flies into Cuban space where it would be shot down by Air Force fighter jets disguised as enemy jets.

Summary:

The engine in Murray Street is an older JT9D-7A engine based on its Tobi-Tube Duct assembly which were ONLY used on 747's. The 767 which apparently struck the WTC building should have had a JT9D-7R4D or newer 4000 series engine, which neither were used. The FAA governs strict adherence to modification of any aircraft, except over NASA and the CIA. The 767 was likely a drone aircraft with light weight thus allowing for quick maneuvering and higher speeds. A pod appears to be visible on the lower right wing root, thus possibly proving that aircraft to be a drone.

Joe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 13 2015, 10:41 AM
Post #66





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,018
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for all that Joe, and welcome to the forum.

Your information could support my contention that the airplane we all saw strike the South Tower might very well have been from a batch of modified 767 aircraft delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a program for an aircraft to replace the USAF tankers KC10 and KC135.

Because of course the military is also exempt from FAA requirements, besides CIA and other federal agencies.

As the story goes, those aircraft we modified in Israel, and apparently by a company at least partly controlled or owned by Dov Zakheim, at the time the comptroller of the Pentagon.

Oh, the web we weave....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 13 2015, 08:11 PM
Post #67





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 13 2015, 09:41 AM) *
As the story goes, those aircraft we modified in Israel, and apparently by a company at least partly controlled or owned by Dov Zakheim, at the time the comptroller of the Pentagon.

Oh, the web we weave....



And that's the story I am going with too because it makes the most sense (with everything else).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 22 2015, 09:37 AM
Post #68





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (JosephR @ Jun 13 2015, 05:22 AM) *
Greetings everyone! It doesn't look like this threat is active. Yet it should be. I also noticed that nobody seems to have identified the engine type on Murray Street. As a former aircraft mechanic, let me offer my research and contributions. What I am about to tell you is solid, but it will take me a while to round up my evidence and post unto this board. Please be advised that I've been harassed quite a few times by someone via the Internet, and because I'm using the dreaded Windows 8.1, backdoor access to my PC is unfortunately easy; not sure if a difference is made with prior Windows based operating systems.

MURRAY STREET ENGINE

The engine found on Murray Street not a CFM-6 engine as some of the disinformation video's have been showing on YouTube. The engine is from an older 747 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A or earlier engine. The evidence is in the Tobi-Tube ducts found at the end of the core. These were discontinued in 1983 when an upgraded version became available known as the JT9D-7R4D. The "R" stands for "Radial" cooling duct which enabled higher HPT (High Pressure Turbine) speeds by reducing airflow drag. It also enhanced engine performance and efficiency. The engine on Murray Street cannot be a JT9D-7R4D because the tobi-tube ducts were not used; only the Radial ducts. Tobi-Tube ducts were only available on -7A/J/F engines and not the -7R4D. The Tobi-Tube duct information can be found on one of its manufacturers known as Chrome Alloy. I created an account there last year and searched for the Radial Duct PN/SN for applicability to the 7R4D. The results showed that the Tobi-Tube duct does not fit the -7R4D, and is ONLY available on the older 747 engines (-7A/J/F).

Flight United used strictly Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767's. Towards the end of the 80's, a new 4000 series engine became standard. The end-item hull number of the 767 that struck the tower I believe was a 1986 model. And United Airlines did not use 1970's engines on 1980's aircraft; the FAA would not allow such a thing. That being said, then who's aircraft was it? There are only two agencies that I'm aware of that are not bound by FAA rules; that's NASA and the CIA. Thus it is my strongest opinion that the CIA in conjunction with Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) took an old 767 out of mothball, used 747 engines since the aircraft would not be carrying heavy luggage or passenger loads, and was turned into a drone aircraft. I believe the CIA conducted the 911 attacks, and I don't believe members of the USAF were aware of it, although some might have been informed.

The DoD generated a 911 style plan during the John F. Kennedy Presidency known as Operation Northwoods. O.N. involved a hijacking scenario of a plane with college students intended to be shot down over Cuba, giving the needed propaganda to start a war against Cuba. But JFK refused to allow the US to start wars as such. A real plane containing CIA actors (passengers) was to take off somewhere and land in Florida, while a drone aircraft would cross flight path spaces with the real jet, and the drone flies into Cuban space where it would be shot down by Air Force fighter jets disguised as enemy jets.

Summary:

The engine in Murray Street is an older JT9D-7A engine based on its Tobi-Tube Duct assembly which were ONLY used on 747's. The 767 which apparently struck the WTC building should have had a JT9D-7R4D or newer 4000 series engine, which neither were used. The FAA governs strict adherence to modification of any aircraft, except over NASA and the CIA. The 767 was likely a drone aircraft with light weight thus allowing for quick maneuvering and higher speeds. A pod appears to be visible on the lower right wing root, thus possibly proving that aircraft to be a drone.

Joe


Dear, 'JosephR'

Thank you for your explanation.

I must admit that I do not think the actual aircraft that hit Tower Two was anything like the size of a Boeing 767.
As I have expressed elsewhere there are literally "Heinz Variety" of differently configured and sized aircraft contained in the various videos said to have been captured when an aircraft of some type hit Tower Two.
My earlier considerations were that the engine pieces filmed at the time of 9/11 and subsequently could have been from a Pratt and Whitney J57 turbo jet engine.
I have since convinced myself that is not the case: by consideration of the configuration of the various porting on the remains of the cores, the type of combustion chamber design and the existence of the Tobi- Tube Duct assembly: which on the evidence of the technical
material that has come available seems to be only applicable to the engines used on the Boeing 747s.

As you have expressed: it would have had to have been a modified Boeing 767 to have used the JT9D-7A engine.

Equally: it could have been another type of modified aircraft which could have had the JT9D-7A engines fitted.
Especially if it was planned to impress upon everybody that it was a Pratt and Whitney turbofan powered aircraft which hit the tower.

Very early in the piece I remember that somebody who actually saw the aircraft that hit Tower Two commented that the aircraft had unusual engines.
Perhaps that person recognised the type of aircraft involved and realised it was not being powered by the normal engines for that type of aircraft.

I have read that apparently the core located at Church and Murray street ended up buried in the 9/11 debris landfill: if it should not have: where is it?

There appear to have been various other pieces of engine placed in various exhibits and museums: are these still available for physical investigation?

Regardless of what aircraft those bits of engine may have been part of: if they are not from the type of engine that was fitted to a United Airlines Boeing 767: there needs to be a very good explanation given as to why not.

Which would be up to United Airlines to provide.

Robert S






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2018 - 08:21 PM