Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

engine identified-CFM56

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-05 11:22 PM
Original message
engine identified-CFM56
Popular Mechanics, while mentioning that an engine from the South Tower airliner landed in the street, neglected to show an engine photo, engine street location, and engine positive identification. Just by identifying undamaged parts from the damaged engine positive identification of the engine was made in the article: However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.

Shortly after the article was posted, a Boeing 767 airliner mechanic emailed that he concurred with the engine identification and that it was not from a Boeing 767.

more-

http://rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Don't you know this was planted in order to spark conspiracy theories?
Edited on Tue Apr-05-05 11:58 AM by spooked911
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a link to GE Engines
http://www.geae.com/engines/index.html



The CFM56-7B engine is specifically designed to power the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ)--a modified version of the Boeing 737.




The GE CF6 family is the cornerstone of the widebody, high bypass ratio turbofan engine business at GE.

* Found on these aircraft: Airbus
* A300/A310/A330
* Boeing 767
* Boeing 747
* MD-11
* DC-10
* E-4
* KC-10
* Air Force One
* Boeing 767 Tanker
* Boeing 767 AWACS
* Airbus 330 Tanker
* CX Japanese Transport


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. A few more engine photos


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. You would think this would be easy to prove or debunk
Those are very clear pictures of that engine that must have come from the plane that hit the south tower. If it's not a type that was used on a 767 then someone's got some 'splainin to do.

But I can't accept a rense.com posting at face value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. all it would take
is some actual serial numbers from that engine.....surely some must have survived.....then we'd know if it's a CFM56 or a CF6.

I agree that Rense authors can't be taken seriously without cross verification. You'd think this would be settled by now....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. If there wasn't an Official Cover-Up, it would be settled
Evidence that contradicted the official story was quickly disappeared...thus we are left with all these loose ends.

A resourceful investigative journalist in New York is likely to come out with a book that will clear up some things, particularly about the explosives because there are so many witnesses. They've been pressured into not talking publicly, but a good investigative journalist can protect the identity of his sources to get around that.

But every covert operation leaves some of these mysterious loose ends like the unidentified plane parts...some of these little mysteries may never be solved. Evidence has been destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. This particular issue can be settled.
This particular issue can be settled if it is possible to identify the make and model of engine from these pictures.

If, however, it is not possible then it would appear that Jon Carlson is being disingenuous when he states that the engine could not have come from a 767.

If it is possible, why did it take almost three and a half years for someone to make a "positive identification"? (Assuming that someone actually has.)
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
49. how do we know it hit the south tower?
not disputing, just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. Who identified that engine as a CFM56?
Edited on Sat Apr-09-05 01:40 PM by Make7
Jon Carlson wrote in WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767:

Just by identifying undamaged parts from the damaged engine positive identification of the engine was made in the article

The impression that he gives is that Popular Mechanics identified the engine. From what I have read, they did not.

So we have the following people positively identifying the engine as a CFM56:

In Mr. Carlson's other article he seems to be suggesting that Popular Mechanics is "hiding" a photo that is widely available on the internet. Good job guys!

Perhaps if there was one credible source that stated that this engine was a CFM56, there would be reason to discuss it.
-Make7

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yeah!........the photo is all over the internet.......

.........so what stopped 'Pop Crap' from using those photos in their article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. yea so what stopped Propaganda Mechanics
...from using those photos in their article ??

good question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Perhaps because it was not relevant to their argument.
The part of the article that mentions the engine is disputing a report that the plane had no windows. Since the report did say it was a plane, the fact that an engine was found did not change, in any way, the issue they were discussing - whether or not the plane had windows.

Maybe if they had known that Jon Carlson and an unidentified Boeing 767 airliner mechanic were going to positively identify the engine as a CFM56 after Popular Mechanics published their article, they may have made more of an effort to dispute that engine identification.
-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. No.

'Pop Mega crap' spoke to Gene Corley who studied the wreckage of flight 175.......


Gene Corley who now works for Construction Technology Laboratories.....who as you can see, are well versed in the field of aviation......


Since 1987, Construction Technology Laboratories has operated as an independent subsidiary of the Portland Cement Association, which was founded in 1916. From its inception as the research laboratories for PCA, CTL has become a consulting firm that provides structural and architectural engineering, testing, and materials technology services throughout the U.S. and internationally. CTLs expertise extends beyond cement and concrete, encompassing virtually all structural systems and construction materials.

http://www.ctlgroup.com/history.asp


Sure...... Gene Corley examined the wreckage of whatever hit the south tower.....

But is he actually in a position to identify these parts as belonging to a 767?







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No, what?
From Popular Mechanics, 9/11: Debunking The Myths:

Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.


FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.


Link to their picture:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-window...
_____________________________________________

How exactly would using a picture of the jet engine be relevant to their argument? The issue they were discussing was whether or not the plane had windows. They used a picture of part of the fuselage that has windows. That was how they made their case. What would printing a picture of the jet engine accomplish for them?
-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-05 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. And what exactly...

.......has mapping the trajectory of the landing gear and the engine got to do with proving whether the plane had windows or not?

After all, it was 'pop mega crap' that brought up the issue of the engine and the landing gear in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Did you forget to ask....
.... why they didn't print a picture of: W. Gene Corley, his team of investigators, Construction Technology Laboratories, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Marc Birnbach, Brooklyn, the crash footage taken by ABC that Corley used, the ABC news crew, and Skokie, IL?

They brought all those things up too. I guess they should have printed pictures.
-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. It was 'pop Mega crap' that forgot to ask
Edited on Mon Apr-11-05 12:23 PM by seatnineb
.......Gene Corley about the following.......

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.


http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstru... .

I Wonder how 'pop mega crap' managed to forget about such a pertinent question?.....


Just like those pictures showing United Airlines Flight 175's 767 engine.........


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-05 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. How about a night recap:
In this thread...

  1. you have asked why Popular Mechanics didn't use a photo of the engine.

    • but you have not shown how omitting an engine photo weakens Popular Mechanic's argument that the plane had windows.

  2. you have questioned whether or not Gene Corley was qualified to identify the airplane parts as belonging to a 767.

    • but, in the article, Gene Corley never identified the plane parts as being from a 767.
    • and you forgot to question the credibility of the persons identifying the engine as a CFM56.

  3. you have wondered what mapping the trajectory of the parts of the plane has to do with proving the plane has windows.

    • do you really need to wonder why they explained how the person they were interviewing was involved in the investigation and what specific areas he had knowledge of? Really? You don't understand why they would point out that he was involved in researching the trajectory of the airplane parts? One of which was their entire case? Really?

  4. you have suggested that Popular Mechanics forgot to ask Gene Corley about having to sign a waiver in order to get the blueprints for the WTC.

    • but you haven't explained how not asking about a waiver has anything to do with proving whether or not a plane has windows.

-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-05 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Should not the question be...........
.......which plane did not have windows.......

For if the plane that Mark Burnback saw did not have windows....

Then what was a windowless plane doing flying low and slow over Brooklyn.....and did that plane eventually fly towards Manhatten ....

...... because these firemen certainly think that the plane that flew over Brooklyn hit the south tower......

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, It sounded like a freight train, he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2. When he arrived on Liberty Street, It was like a war zone when we got there. There were body parts all over the street.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426 .

Is this the plane they are refering to?



Why golly.............

Looks like it missed it's target..........

Another question that'pop mega crap' was too scared to answer....

Just like you.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-05 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Interesting
I've never seen this photo before, was this ever addressed officially?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. If that's what the question should be....
...then why did you ask...

  • why Popular Mechanics didn't use a photo of the engine in their article?
  • whether Gene Corley was qualified to identify the airplane parts?
  • what mapping the trajectory of those parts had to do with proving the airplane that stuck the South Tower had windows?
  • why Popular Mechanics didn't print anything about Gene Corley having to sign a waiver in order to get the blueprints for the Twin Towers?


seatnineb posted:
...... because these firemen certainly think that the plane that flew over Brooklyn hit the south tower......

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, It sounded like a freight train, he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2. When he arrived on Liberty Street, It was like a war zone when we got there. There were body parts all over the street.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426 .

Is this the plane they are refering to?

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/new.plane-08.jpg?...

If the firemen say that the plane that they saw stuck the South Tower and the plane from that video did not strike the South Tower, I would have to conclude that the firemen are not referring to the plane in the video.
____________

If the video of this plane is something you want to discuss, let's discuss it. But in order to start, I certainly think we need more information than one frame of a video. So maybe you could gather some information to strengthen your argument and give us something to debate. I think the following would be helpful:

  • In order to determine the size and position of the plane in the video, it would be beneficial to have a video clip (or even a still photograph) of the plane from a different angle. (This shouldn't be too difficult - as I recall there were quite a few cameras pointed at the Twin Towers at the time.)
  • Perhaps in your search you could find a video that has a close up of that plane - that would be a good way to verify whether or not it has windows. It may not even be the plane that Mark Birnbach saw, it could be a third plane.
  • We could determine how close the plane actually came to the Twin Towers if you could identify what kind of plane it is and where the person taking this video footage was located. This probably would also allow us to determine the speed of the plane.
Scared7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The question:
It is actually a much simpler question.

What is the trajectory of approach for flight 175?

Because you have this:

When he was still on the BROOKLYN side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, It sounded like a freight train, he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426

But then again ......you also have this:

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the STATUE OF LIBERTY and about to fly over our heads
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html .

I looked up and saw the second plane flying right over LIBERTY'S TORCH, very low," he recalls. "The north tower was already on fire. Seconds later, the south tower exploded into a fireball. And I thought, The Lady is next."
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/6227965... .

So Denial/Scared/Make7............

Did Flight 175 fly from this direction..........




Or this direction..........




Here is a little map to help you..........you're gonna need it...











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-05 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Now I think the question should be:
Since we have these eye-witness reports of two different airplanes hitting the South Tower:

From http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html :

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the Statue of Liberty and about to fly over our heads. Then, the plane avoided a high-rise just north of us and flew into the south side of the South Tower at about the 70th floor level. The huge plane disappeared into the even larger building, and a huge ball of flame and smoke erupted.

From http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426 :

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, It sounded like a freight train, he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2.

Why isn't there any video or pictures of the second plane impacting the South Tower? We have plenty of video and pictures of the first plane hitting the South Tower, why nothing of the second plane's impact?
-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Well............I guess if it is one in the same plane .............
.......then it must have done a U-Turn............

But I think you already knew that.

Look what Brooklyn heights resident,Park Foreman had to say.......

"I heard a plane fly overhead," said Park Foreman, 37, an Internet security consultant. "Then I looked out the window and saw the first tower on fire. I saw another airplane approaching from the south. I put my camera on it and followed it straight into the building. It looked like it went right through.

http://poly.union.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=793&pa ... .

But will this u-turn conform to the description as given by the official story conspiracy theorists...........such as yourself.



I think not.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. This much I know
I personally know about 12 people that work just southwest of the WTC in the NJ side in Bayonne NJ. I'd guess 4 to 5 miles away. Right on end of 22nd Street.

On 9/11 they were on the three story roof of their place of work, and watched flight 175 fly overhead and into the south tower.

None of them have any wonders what hit the towers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. So did your friends..........
........not see the U-turn that was performed by this Flying killing machine?

And did your anonymouse mates identify the plane there and then as United Airlines Flight 175 as it flew over their heads.

Cos' United Airlines sure as hell didn't know what had hit the South Tower.........long AFTER it was hit......



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. re
"So did your friends..............not see the U-turn that was performed by this Flying killing machine?

Never asked them about a U-turn? Why would I?

And did your anonymouse mates identify the plane there and then as United Airlines Flight 175 as it flew over their heads.

That's a pretty silly question. Flight numbers are not painted on the sides of aircraft. They would have no idea what flight flew over their heads.

Is there a point to the questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. Yeah!

On Thu Apr-14-05 10:35 PM LARED wrote:

"I personally know about 12 people that work just southwest of the WTC in the NJ side in Bayonne NJ. I'd guess 4 to 5 miles away. Right on end of 22nd Street.

On 9/11 they were on the three story roof of their place of work, and watched flight 175 fly overhead and into the south tower.

None of them have any wonders what hit the towers. "


So they saw a plane fly overhead........

But was that plane United Airlines flight 175?

Could they make anything out on the plane at all?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Well they watched it fly into the tower
None of them has indicated they have ANY concerns as to what they saw. None have mentioned drones, holograms. windowless planes, laser beams. etc, etc, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Sure...........

But there was a windowless plane with a blue logo towards the front that "definetly did not look like a commercial airliner"that flew " low and slow" somewhere near Brooklyn or over Brooklyn BEFORE whatever plane that approached from New Jesrey(that your mates saw) and hit WTC2.

And there aint shit you or your anonymouse buddies can do to refute it.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Lets assume the windowless plane existed for a moment
So WHAT!!!!!

There are three major airports in close proximity to the WTC. I used to work in an area between the WTC and Newark airport. There are dozens of planes within eyesight almost every minute of the day.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Your "So what!" attitude can only take you so far.........

In the words of Mark Birnbach:

"It was not a plane that you would see at any airport"

"It definetly did not look like a commercial airliner"

Birnback seems to be backed up by this witness.

"Then, low in the sky, I saw a plane coming, it had two engines on either side of the tail, and even from our vantage the plane looked large. I couldn't believe what I was seeing - I thought for a moment it was a news or rescue plane, silly as that sounds"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm .


Or do JFK,Laguardia and Newark make a habit of landing and taking-off planes that do not have windows and have 2 engines on either side of their tails.............

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I don't understand....
....there is no mention of a U-turn maneuver by the firemen in the article you quoted from. I have to conclude from the eye-witness reports you have posted that two different planes struck the South Tower.

So the question should be: Why are there no photos or video of a second plane flying into the South Tower?
-Denial7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Helicopter?
Some people argue that this is a plane... It does look like a plane, but I dont know. Maybe somebody here can say for sure.



More : http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. That does look like a plane.
If you go here:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit6

It appears that they are talking about it - however, since I don't know Danish, that is pure speculation. :)

At the top of the page there is a link to a video that seems to be the footage that contains the picture you posted. And that does look like a plane to me as well, but I can't really say that I'm surprised to learn that there are planes in an area that has three large international airports.

From the single perspective of this video footage, and without knowing what kind of airplane it is, I don't think it is possible to even tell how close to the WTC site it is. And without knowing that, I don't really know that this has any significance. (Other than something that someone may want to look into further.)

If somebody were able to calculate the position of the plane and demonstrate that it was definitely outside the normal flight paths of the local airports, then we could certainly look forward to an interesting debate.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. A plane would be quite common
If it is a plane, it would not mean much because Newark Airport is a few miles almost directly West of the WTC complex.

Newark handles about 40,000 flights per month. If you add JFK and LaGuardia, (two other large airport pretty close to the WTC) the monthly number goes to 100,000 flights.

http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/traffic/monthlycontents2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. No.

The question should be..........

Why are there no photos of the windowless plane with the blue logo that flew over Brooklyn BEFORE United Airlines Flight 175 hit the south tower?.

Actually.......

Forget about photos........

Why was a windowless plane with a blue logo "that definetly did not look like a coomercial airliner", flying OVER brooklyn BEFORE UA175 hit the south tower?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K_in_PA Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
30. What if...
the engine in question was in the cargo hold of the plane when it struck the tower? Just wondering. Oh, and hello everyone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Welcome to DU!!! And are saying this was part of a conspiracy or
was the engine being in the cargo hold a benign explanation?

I've actually wondered if the 757 debris at the Pentagon was planted on the plane that hit there-- because I don't see how a normal 757 could have produced the damage seen at the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
32. Engine identified - JT9D
Here is a photo of the engine part that fell into the NYC street:



Best way to identify a damaged engine portion is to identify undamaged parts on it.

LIKE: http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/882E23B6-5C17-41CD-B7...

(From: http://www.volvo.com/volvoaero/global/en-gb/partsservic... )

Fuel nozzles were also JT9D but the WTC picture is crystal clear: A plane with JT9D jet engines struck the South Tower on 9/11. Would somebody tell Jon Carlson?
-Make7
Note: I am expecting to hear shortly from an anonymous Pratt & Whitney jet engine mechanic to verify my engine identification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-05 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Update!
I just received an email from Pratt & Whitney and I have to say that I am a little disappointed. No one confirmed the engine identification I made by using the method used and suggested by Jon Carlson in his article.

In fact, the person at Pratt & Whitney requested numbers from engine parts in order to positively identify it.

(I still think it looks like a JT9D.)
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. that photo is different than the one I posted
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 02:09 AM by slaveplanet
yours has a carpenters square placed on the engine for reference.

Carlson has this to say: Somebody has placed a carpenter's square in the opening so the size is that of a CFM56. This is the definitive photo of the street engine.

CFM56:



http://rense.com/general64/wth.htm

and about those missing serial #'s ...

http://rense.com/general64/prec.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. RE: yours has a carpenters square placed on the engine
slaveplanet wrote:
That photo is different than the one I posted, yours has a carpenters square placed on the engine for reference.

Carlson has this to say: Somebody has placed a carpenter's square in the opening so the size is that of a CFM56. This is the definitive photo of the street engine.

Yes, the photo I used was different than the one in your original post. I used the one that Jon Carlson says "is the definitive photo of the street engine." Does it make a difference that I used a different photo?

By the way, the photo in your original post has a carpenter's square placed on the engine too:



My point, in the last two posts, was that it is very unlikely that Jon Carlson has positively identified that engine by using photographs. In fact, I wrote to one of the leading manufacturers of commercial jet engines and they requested part numbers in order to be able to identify it.

Even George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.) writes:
"United Airlines Flight 175

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.


http://rense.com/general64/prec.htm

So he seems to be saying that part numbers are needed to track down what plane it came from. So what I'd like to know is: how is Jon Carlson able to definitively identify that engine as a CFM56 without any part numbers?

I don't think he is able to. I don't think he knows what he is talking about. A 737 did not hit the South Tower. If Jon Carlson had any evidence (other than this bogus engine claim) to prove such a thing, he would have been able to make a case. But he has not made one.

Hell, even you agreed "that Rense authors can't be taken seriously without cross verification." (post #5) Have you found anyone else to verify what Jon Carlson claims as fact?
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I don't see a
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 01:15 PM by slaveplanet
carpenter's square in this picture

could you point it out?

no I haven't been able to find any one to cross verify his claims, that is one reason I posted. To me, he is claiming it is a cmf56 due to size, so the carpenter's square is an important clue to size reference the engine...no?

you seem to be taking George Nelson's observations out of context...he is asking why there are no numbers produced by the government....In the face that we know such numbers exist ...or did exist in the physical evidence...surely those would be important things to preserve ..but in the case of 9/11...to many, the importance is nill...blind faith is all that is required.


Geo Nelson Colonel, USAF (ret.),1989 graduate from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. :

The precautionary principle is based on the fact that the failure to prove a proposition completely does not disprove the proposition.

The proposition arrived at here is this: the 911 hijackings and damage to buildings were not the work of Arab terrorists, but appear to have been part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Here ya go:

(Image)

There may be a reason you can't find anyone that will verify his claims. He can't back them up.

How big is that carpenter's square? (Just as a reference.)

I don't think that you can just use simple measurements from a picture to try and identify a damaged jet engine. If you had access to it and could make detailed measurements of the different parts, then you could probably match them up to detailed drawings of a particular engine. But of course if you had access to the engine, why not just get some numbers off it and track it down with the paperwork. Then you'll not only know what kind of engine it is, but what plane it came from.

Which is why I brought up that quote from George Nelson. He was saying that if the government would produce the numbers, we would know what plane it came from. I agree with him, I was just pointing out that he thinks the way to resolve the identity issue would be to trace the numbers from the engine.

I just don't believe that Jon Carlson is able to identify the damaged engine with only photographs. He did not make, by any stretch of the imagination, a detailed analysis of the engine in the photos and compare them to any type of drawing of a CFM56. He used what appeared to me to be low quality pictures that he didn't seem to even go to the effort to measure and compare sizes to the damaged engine photos. Other than not doing a thorough investigation and coming up with the wrong conclusion, .... well, I'll just leave it at that.
__________

"The precautionary principle is based on the fact that the failure to prove a proposition completely does not disprove the proposition."

The governments proposition is that the engine in that picture came from Flight 175. The fact that they haven't released results from an investigation of engine part numbers doesn't mean that one hasn't been done. They may have failed to prove their proposition completely, but that does not disprove the proposition.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. thanks for pointing that out
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 03:04 PM by slaveplanet
kind of blends in with all that twisted mass.

The fact that they haven't released results from an investigation of engine part numbers doesn't mean that one hasn't been done.


anyone not forthcoming , has something to hide.

That is why it called a coverup....thanks for coming to that conclusion for everyone.

Now we need to find out why(and who gve the orders) they have deviated from normal procedures , and not released publicly , the numbers they are covering up...

How big is that carpenter's square? (Just as a reference.)

obviously it has 12 inch measurements on the long side, just compare it to the steet sign for reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Thanks for the credit, but.....
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 03:56 PM by Make7
...I believe that George Nelson is the one who deserves credit for that conclusion. (That's not an inaccurate assessment of his article, is it? I'd hate to mistakenly attribute something to someone if that isn't what they wrote. I'm sure you agree.)

I'm beginning to see why you like rense.com so much.

BTW, when you get to the bottom of the coverup and find out that the engine is not a CFM56, would you tell Jon Carlson?
Thanks,
Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Yes I Agree
I too am beginning to see that Renae has no more credibility than the US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. Here's another view of it. If this helps at all to identify it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
42. I've noticed plenty of passionate aviation experts among 9/11 sceptics
Keep on flying free guys!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
43. Planes, Trains & Automobiles.
With the advent of the internet, a plethora ("Jefe, do you even know...") of information is now only a few mouse clicks away. Information like the structural dimensions of commercial aircraft. For instance:
The dimensions of the different models of the Boeing 737 that have been
produced are readily available on their website here:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/737.htm

Also, the dimensions of the different models of the 767 can be found here:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/767.htm

I think that most of us will agree that there is a picture or two on the internet of the the plane that struck the South Tower. What might be useful is if someone were to compare the dimensions of the plane in the picture to the data on Boeing's website. Fortunately for us someone has done just that. Over at letsroll911.org a poster by the name of ryandinan has done a comparison. Let's take a look shall we:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.ph... 
(His analysis is quoted in the post by dazinith at the top of the page.)
Okay. Now I know you all rushed right over to the Boeing site to find the dimensions for the biggest 737 made, but I'll post them just so we can all double-check our figures. (I'll use the nomenclature that ryandinan used.)
Wingspan:   112'7"
Stabilizer: 47'1"
Engines: 31'8"
So by comparing these figures to the analysis of the plane in the picture done by ryandinan, we can see that the plane that hit the South Tower was much larger than a 737. In fact, it seems to match up pretty closely with the dimensions of a 767-200 or 300 series. Now before anyone goes over his calculations to find problems with them, let me just point out some minor mistakes that he made:
  • The dimension for the distance between engines should be 52'. He used 51.5'.
  • He didn't transfer the measurement of the distance between the engines correctly from the picture.
    The graphic says 56.1' - he wrote 58.1' in his chart.
  • Obviously this will change his percentage calculations. He should have gotten 92.7%.
So his results should actually be closer, in terms of matching percentage differences, to the other measured dimensions for a 767-200 or 300 series than is reflected in his chart.

I'm sure we all remember what make and model of plane were said to have struck the South Tower - it was a Boeing 767-222. What a coincidence! Thank you ryandinan for your research and analysis.

Oh, before I go, I'd like to quote the Boeing 767 mechanic from Jon Carlson's WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767 article:
"I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67." - Anonymous Mechanic
Hmmmm.....
 :) Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
47. Another nail in the coffin of the official theory of what happened to NYC
On 9/11 2001.

As more and more New Yorkers wake up to this information, it's gonna make a big difference in our world!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
48. N334AA
There have been several planes that carried the N334AA registration.

DOUGLAS DC-7
45106 DC-7 738 N334AA (Broken up)
http://home.hccnet.nl/p.w.riool/dc23.html
Nose and cockpit are sitting in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC.

N334AA 45106/738 11/56 08/62 F/S VERMONT
http://geocities.com/~aeromoe/fleets/aa.html
Photo added: June 8, 1999
American Airlines: Douglas DC-7
In Washington, USA - District of Columbia, June 29, 1998
N334AA (cn 45106/738) In Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. Nose only.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=034929&size=M&sok...

45106 DC-7 738 N334AA (Broken up)
45232 DC-7B 821 N335AA
CONV. DC-7BF N335AA N758Z: SE-ERF: VR-BDP: VR-BDQ: N8784: HK-1300 (Broken up)
45233 DC-7B 828 N336AA
CONV. DC-7BF N336AA N759Z (Broken up)
45234 DC-7B 838 N337AA
CONV. DC-7BF N337AA N760Z (Broken up)
http://home.hccnet.nl/p.w.riool/dc23.html

Apparently this N334AA
45106/738 11/56 08/62 F/S VERMONT
was replaced by
Mac Donnell-Douglas MD-82
N334AA
Los Angeles 1999
http://www.al-airliners.be/a/american/american.htm
The next plane to take on the N344AA registration was the Boeing 767 that allegedly crashed into the WTC.

N334AA 223ER 22332/169 334 04/87 *
http://geocities.com/~aeromoe/fleets/aa.html

According to the FAA, this transfer occurred on 01/06/2000. Apparently this plane was awarded an Airworthiness Certificate in 04/10/87 but yet did not appear on the civil registry until 01/06/2000.
This is a time lag of 13 years.

What is also more interesting is that the serial number
before and after it
were delivered to AA at about the same time,
whereupon they received their Airworthiness Certificates
and then entered service with AA very soon afterwards.
Thus we see that the Boeing N334AA was a special case
from the very beginning of it's AA career.

The same exact sequence break involving the transition from a DC-7 to a Boeing 757 when tracking back N644AA which is said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Let us return to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.
We know for a fact that they have the nose of that plane.

N334AA aka "Flagship Vermont" is a DC-7
whose nose resides within the National Air and Space Museum.
It was manufactured in 1956
and has the serial number 45106/735 or 45106/738.
Apparently it flew for about SIX years
before being beheaded in 1962.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Now, all we have to do is figure out how an engine
from a plane that was broken up in 1962
managed to find its way into the rubble of a building
that was destroyed in 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
55. Locking
Rense is not considered an acceptable source as they frequently rebrand material from known hate sites.

Lithos
Sept 9-11 Moderator
Democratic Underground
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 14th 2019, 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC