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 )

Can this be the engine from United 175?

Poacher
post Oct 21 2006, 07:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 122



I was browsing the 911blogger earlier today and saw a blog about the engine from the second plane that hit the towers.

www.911blogger.com/node/3935

It led me to a story on Rense here

www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetE.jpg

There is a pic four down that clearly shows an engine. I am presuming this was what seemed to fly out of the other side of the WTC on impact and land in the streets.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetE.jpg

Along with other photos, is it possible for an engineer to clarify the exact engine type and if it matches United 175 from these photos? I thought this forum might be the best place to get an answer or maybe help with a possible lead.

smile.gif

This post has been edited by Poacher: Oct 21 2006, 07:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
JosephR
post Jun 12 2015, 03:52 PM
Post #2





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
23investigator
post Jun 22 2015, 09:37 AM
Post #3





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

Posts in this topic
- Poacher   Can this be the engine from United 175?   Oct 21 2006, 07:50 PM
- - johndoeX   From what i understand.. none of the parts from an...   Oct 21 2006, 07:59 PM
- - Poacher   Well, to be realistic 'they' are not about...   Oct 21 2006, 08:09 PM
- - Poacher   I found another high res pic of an engine that may...   Oct 29 2006, 01:59 PM
- - bill   http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm th...   Oct 30 2006, 09:58 AM
- - v2rot8   It looks like the inner most core of an engine, sa...   Oct 31 2006, 06:59 PM
- - JackD   Big Junk: evidence planted? The picture is taken ...   Dec 12 2006, 09:15 PM
- - liberty-911   I work in a engine shop, I have the photo and will...   Feb 25 2007, 06:22 PM
- - liberty-911   It seems that most agree that this is not a RB-211...   Feb 26 2007, 09:03 PM
- - Zapzarap   Any news on that? *curious* Zap   Mar 18 2007, 06:49 PM
- - liberty-911   Not yet, I got real busy, so I' ll try to reac...   Mar 19 2007, 06:50 PM
- - waterdancer   So far these are the highest res. shots of that en...   Mar 20 2007, 11:59 PM
|- - spellman   QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 20 2007, 11:59 P...   Feb 18 2009, 08:05 AM
|- - Omega892R09   QUOTE (spellman @ Feb 16 2009, 11:05 AM) ...   Feb 18 2009, 08:26 AM
- - liberty-911   I emailed the above photos to my buddy. I let you ...   Mar 21 2007, 08:10 PM
- - JackD   engine mechanics -- what is likelihood engine cras...   Mar 26 2007, 09:09 PM
- - amazed!   Yeah, it sure seems pretty small to me.   Mar 26 2007, 11:09 PM
- - waterdancer   I recently read somewhere that it initially landed...   Mar 27 2007, 04:49 AM
- - truthseeker   QUOTE (liberty-911 @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 ...   Aug 15 2007, 08:47 PM
- - SlackerSlayer   QUOTE (liberty-911 @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 ...   Jan 4 2008, 04:08 PM
- - amazed!   Well the dimensions of the 737 and 767 are quite d...   Jan 4 2008, 11:47 PM
- - dMole   Here's a photo of the business end of a [UNDAM...   Jan 5 2008, 07:20 AM
|- - dMole   QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 5 2008, 05:20 AM) Here...   Sep 28 2009, 03:54 AM
- - dMole   I found the following photos in one of my collecti...   May 31 2008, 04:13 AM
- - dMole   FWIW, the KC-135R Stratotanker has been retrofitte...   Oct 30 2008, 03:34 AM
|- - Omega892R09   QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 28 2008, 05:34 AM) FWI...   Oct 31 2008, 08:30 AM
- - Ricochet   A few observations. The damaged street sign ...   Oct 30 2008, 02:21 PM
- - dMole   Hi Rico, You did notice the construction scaffold...   Oct 30 2008, 02:51 PM
- - Omega892R09   What bothers me about these pictures, other than t...   Oct 30 2008, 04:10 PM
|- - lookingfortheme   QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 30 2008, 10:10 P...   Jul 26 2009, 05:40 PM
|- - lunk   QUOTE (lookingfortheme @ Jul 26 2009, 02...   Jul 27 2009, 01:18 AM
- - Leslie Landry   911Blogger.Com. This is an engine that was recover...   Oct 31 2008, 12:35 AM
- - dMole   Hi LL, Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't...   Oct 31 2008, 12:55 AM
- - Ricochet   The picture Leslie posted is from the Freshkill la...   Nov 1 2008, 06:25 PM
- - dMole   That freshkills debris looks more like a Rolls RB2...   Nov 1 2008, 07:17 PM
|- - keroseneaddict   QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 07:17 PM) That...   Nov 1 2008, 07:37 PM
- - dMole   So to summarize then, we've seen photos of 2 d...   Nov 2 2008, 12:34 AM
|- - Leslie Landry   QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 11:34 PM) Now ...   Nov 2 2008, 02:38 PM
|- - dMole   QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 09:34 PM) So t...   Feb 5 2009, 07:54 AM
- - dMole   Did anyone hear about a surplus airplane parts sal...   Nov 2 2008, 04:39 PM
- - dMole   The Pentagon's alleged "engine core...   Nov 12 2008, 01:00 AM
- - Ricochet   I checked on surveilance cams around the WTC and l...   Dec 16 2008, 07:42 PM
|- - dMole   QUOTE (Ricochet @ Dec 16 2008, 04:42 PM) ...   Feb 5 2009, 12:30 PM
- - dMole   QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 31 2008, 05:30 A...   Feb 5 2009, 11:59 AM
- - Ricochet   100 Duane St. Firestation # 7 no cameras either as...   Feb 5 2009, 04:13 PM
- - georgie101   You were fast Omega, you got there before me! ...   Feb 18 2009, 08:29 AM
- - aerohead   Interesting thread. I see debunker had shown up t...   Jul 19 2009, 02:55 AM
- - SwingDangler   I'm not an expert by any means, but why in the...   Jul 21 2009, 09:24 AM
|- - JimMac   QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jul 21 2009, 09:24 ...   Jul 22 2009, 12:04 AM
- - albertchampion   i think that the implication has been that someone...   Jul 21 2009, 07:38 PM
- - dMole   I think it is actually a special scale for forensi...   Jul 22 2009, 03:48 AM
- - paranoia   minus the drama, this thread contains an informati...   Jul 22 2009, 07:57 PM
|- - lunk   QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 22 2009, 04:57 PM) ...   Jul 23 2009, 05:38 PM
- - aerohead   It would be VERY easy to identify what plane hit ...   Jul 24 2009, 05:20 PM
|- - DoYouEverWonder   QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 24 2009, 05:20 PM) ...   Jul 24 2009, 06:51 PM
|- - aerohead   QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jul 24 2009, 05...   Jul 24 2009, 07:54 PM
- - albertchampion   tell me, dmole, am i interpreting your pix accurat...   Sep 28 2009, 09:25 PM
|- - dMole   QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 28 2009, 07:2...   Sep 28 2009, 10:22 PM
|- - Omega892R09   QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 26 2009, 11:2...   Sep 29 2009, 06:33 AM
- - albertchampion   here's one for you. for years i used to stay ...   Sep 29 2009, 09:33 PM
- - dMole   It is worth revisiting this photo again- it is fro...   Sep 30 2009, 09:05 AM
|- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 30 2009, 08:05 AM) It ...   Nov 27 2013, 08:36 PM
- - amazed!   NP1Mike I agree very much with what you say. My ...   Dec 1 2013, 11:52 AM
|- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2013, 10:52 AM...   Dec 1 2013, 05:11 PM
- - JosephR   Greetings everyone! It doesn't look like ...   Jun 12 2015, 03:52 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (JosephR @ Jun 13 2015, 05:22 AM) G...   Jun 22 2015, 09:37 AM
- - amazed!   Thanks for all that Joe, and welcome to the forum....   Jun 13 2015, 10:41 AM
- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 13 2015, 09:41 A...   Jun 13 2015, 08:11 PM


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: 15th October 2019 - 08:29 PM