Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-07-2008, 08:14 PM   #1
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default Flight 175 Dropped WRONG Engine In NYC Street?

United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767, but the engine that crashed to the ground was from a Boeing 737 according to the below site.



http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7120021

Is it a Boeing 767 engine or a Boeing 737 engine?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 08:39 PM   #2
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

"Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place."

From: http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press13.htm
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 08:56 PM   #3
narcolepticwatchman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 513
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place."

From: http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press13.htm
Confirming nothing of the sort. Confirming further that the official story is a pack of lies yes. Confirming even further that 911 was an inside job. Not in anyway confirming the involvement of planes. That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.

Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....
narcolepticwatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 11:07 PM   #4
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
Confirming nothing of the sort. Confirming further that the official story is a pack of lies yes. Confirming even further that 911 was an inside job. Not in anyway confirming the involvement of planes. That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.

Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....
I find it hard to believe that there were no planes hitting the buildings. Maybe they could have presented faked videos to the media, because there were only a few video recordings of the planes. But there must have been thousands and thousands of people in New York who saw the actual events with the planes hitting the towers that day.

Here is a video with a professor being interviewed on Fox about faked 911 videos:

anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 12:05 AM   #5
thematrix
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 311
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.
What qualifies your opinion on whether a plane engine hitting a building at hundreds of miles an hour will come through the building ?

What proof is there that there was no hole the engine emerged from?

There is eye witness testimony of "Manuel Delgado" who witnesses debris landing on the bonnet of his car just after the 2nd impact at the corner of "West Broadway and Vesey" he says "There was a police car... on the corner there and some debris comes down... and it just crushes it... It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

[source]

[original source] note that this was reported in 2005 but the actual interview was conducted on October 2nd 2001

this conflicts with the FEMA report however fig 1-4 here puts the engine debris at Church and Murray (the bent sign saying Murray tends to suggest this location is correct) and according to google maps the corner of West Broadway and Vesey is some 250metres away from this corner.

Perhaps Manuel merely is mistaken is his location (?) his account tho does lend credence to debris from an impact falling from an actual real plane.

Quote:
Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....
there is a good quality photo of this engine here...

this same photo is from the NST report and their description of it is "Figure 7-34 is a photograph taken on September 11, 2001 that shows what appears to be a portion of one of the jet engines sitting very near the corner of Church and Murray Streets. This location is roughly 1,5000 ft from the north side of WTC 2. Various photographs and videos indicate that this component hit the eastern edge of a building located on the west side of Church Street between Murray Street and Park Place (see the map in Figure 4.1) before falling the remaining distance and coming to rest at the northeast corner of the intersection. The impact on the building knocked a portion of the roof and other debris onto Church Street." [source]

Nila Sagadevan also wrote this write up about "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training" source

Nila is described as an aeronautical engineer and former pilot - tho I cannot find any info detailing his qualifications/credentials more than that.

911myths hosts this pdf in which the author describes Nila's article re: piloting "I consider it an example of pseudo-expertise which has the only effect of further muddling the issue."

The author is Giulio Bernacchia - his credentials are detailed here
and are hard to dismiss. He calls Nilas expertise into question several times.

His paper which basicalluy trashes Nilas is linked here

Given that serious doubt is cast on Nila and he is the SOLE source of the indentification of the south tower engine being of the wrong type for a 767 - I don't put much stock in his engine ID.

and finally if there were "no planes" - how do you explain all of the witness testimony and aircraft wreckage documented here ???
thematrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 11:52 AM   #6
narcolepticwatchman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 513
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrix View Post
What qualifies your opinion on whether a plane engine hitting a building at hundreds of miles an hour will come through the building ?

What proof is there that there was no hole the engine emerged from?
I had a look at some photos, saw there was no gash, hole or bent steel on the opposite side, checked the window sizes and the gaps between the column centres, looked at another photo showing the same engine with a guy standing next to it, used the guy as a scale and summised that he was greater than 4 ft tall, then shook my head in disbelief when I realised that the engine would not fit through a 2ft gap.

As for the eyewitness testimony, eyewitnesses are easily faked and made up. If you doubt the capabilities of the CIA or Mossad or any other military or secret service could manufacture such 'testimony' then you are living in cukoo land.
narcolepticwatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 07:46 PM   #7
thematrix
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 311
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
I had a look at some photos, saw there was no gash, hole or bent steel on the opposite side, checked the window sizes and the gaps between the column centres, looked at another photo showing the same engine with a guy standing next to it, used the guy as a scale and summised that he was greater than 4 ft tall, then shook my head in disbelief when I realised that the engine would not fit through a 2ft gap.
there are lots of images detailing the engines "exit hole" .

The engine was under the wing horizontally and would likely have exited the building horizontally and not vertically as we see it in that picture.

Thats the rear portion of the engine in the street, so perhaps when the front half broke off it tumbled and broke through the other side , the factthat some videos of the impact show debris leaving a vapour trail as it comes out of the tower and falls to earth tends to suggest that that debris was an engine and it was horizontal.

A lot of researchers don't seem able to get the type of plane right. UA 175 was a Boeing 767-222 not a 767-200 it had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines.

Presumably the FBI didn't bother to identify the airplane parts by corss referencing the part numbers which would all have been catalogued - or they did and just won't tell anyone.

The only two people I can find referenced who ID the engine in the street are Nila (already somewhat discredited in previous post) and an unnamed 767 engineer mentioned on rense.com. Not exactly convincing. (Tho to be fair and balanced I've not found anyone who has ID'd the engine as anything else with dodgy credentials or not)

also a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it was spotted and first highlighted over on the loose change forums - it was identified by a poster on the randi forums [over here] as being a numbered part of a boeing 767 200-300 type aircraft.

Quote:
As for the eyewitness testimony, eyewitnesses are easily faked and made up. If you doubt the capabilities of the CIA or Mossad or any other military or secret service could manufacture such 'testimony' then you are living in cukoo land.
Oh yes sorry I forget - all the evidence that supports the conspiracy theorists (especially the no planers) is completely true - and any evidence to the contrary was planted deliberately as false disinfo by government black ops shills. How silly of me.
thematrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 09:06 PM   #8
narcolepticwatchman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 513
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrix View Post
there are lots of images detailing the engines "exit hole" .
show me one

Quote:
The engine was under the wing horizontally and would likely have exited the building horizontally and not vertically as we see it in that picture.
So you are an expert on the engine flight path following supposed collision with numerous box columns, core columns and further box columns. That statement made me laugh. Thanks.

Last edited by narcolepticwatchman; 02-07-2008 at 09:13 PM.
narcolepticwatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 09:48 PM   #9
mynameis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,549
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767, but the engine that crashed to the ground was from a Boeing 737 according to the below site.



http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7120021

Is it a Boeing 767 engine or a Boeing 737 engine?
Is it a habit that you believe anything you read on the internet? No. Go get a second opinion from a reliable source...K, thx.
__________________
I can no longer have fair and intelligent conversation with people here, without them resorting to the use of personal attacks. I have been targeted as a scapegoat for my defensive actions. I cannot discuss new topics and stop the rampant amounts of misinformation when it happens, where it applies. If it can happen to me it can happen to you.
mynameis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 10:19 PM   #10
thematrix
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 311
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
show me one
if you insist..

red box outlines the engines exit hole.

closer up better picture showing same thing

[source webpage]

Quote:
So you are an expert on the engine flight path following supposed collision with numerous box columns, core columns and further box columns. That statement made me laugh. Thanks.
I would describe myself as an intelligent, well researched layman and not an expert.

Jet engines work by sucking air through their mostly tubular design and venting it out the back quickly along with hot exhaust gasses. Inertia means that until it hits a force strong enough to deflect it things keep moving in the same direction. It might well have tumbled as it broke off the wing and seperated from the rest of the engine (as I did point out above) but certainly after it emerges from the building it's very likely to follow the path of least resistance and "fly" with the air rushing through it perpendicular to the way we see it resting on the street.

In any case how the engine flew isn't very important, the fact that it did fly through the air after a real plane impacted a real tower is much more so.

I'm glad I made you laugh though - there is not enough laughter in the world.

picture showing possible "vapour trail" made by burning debris as it falls to earth

Last edited by thematrix; 03-07-2008 at 03:20 AM. Reason: mixed up red and yellow outlines
thematrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 10:29 PM   #11
stealth_0073
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default



Explain how the engines leaves 2 laser eye imprints, 1 in middle of building
and 1 at the corner of building.

Last edited by stealth_0073; 02-07-2008 at 10:35 PM.
stealth_0073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 10:31 PM   #12
narcolepticwatchman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 513
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrix View Post
if you insist..

yellow box outlines the engines exit hole.

closer up better picture showing same thing

[source webpage]



I would describe myself as an intelligent, well researched layman and not an expert.

Jet engines work by sucking air through their mostly tubular design and venting it out the back quickly along with hot exhaust gasses. Inertia means that until it hits a force strong enough to deflect it things keep moving in the same direction. It might well have tumbled as it broke off the wing and seperated from the front bit of the engine (as I did point out above) but certainly after it emerges from the building it's very likely to follow the path of least resistance and "fly" with the air rushing through it perpendicular to the way we see it resting on the street.

In any case how the engine flew isn't very important, the fact that it did fly through the air after a real plane impacted a real tower is much more so.

I'm glad I made you laugh though - there is not enough laughter in the world.

picture showing possible "vapour trail" made by burning debris as it falls to earth
Congratulations. you have just posted a picture of some broken aluminium cladding.....not some bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns....which still have centres of approx 40".....making a gap of 26" ....still just over 2ft.
narcolepticwatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 10:42 PM   #13
mynameis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,549
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
Congratulations. you have just posted a picture of some broken aluminium cladding.....not some bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns....which still have centres of approx 40".....making a gap of 26" ....still just over 2ft.
How large is the dimensions of the core engine minus the fan blades?



Wow. Looks like that's about 2 ft x 3-4 ft. Next you'll be saying the hole is triangle shaped or diamond shaped and can't fit that.
__________________
I can no longer have fair and intelligent conversation with people here, without them resorting to the use of personal attacks. I have been targeted as a scapegoat for my defensive actions. I cannot discuss new topics and stop the rampant amounts of misinformation when it happens, where it applies. If it can happen to me it can happen to you.

Last edited by mynameis; 02-07-2008 at 10:45 PM.
mynameis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 10:50 PM   #14
stealth_0073
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameis View Post
How large is the dimensions of the core engine minus the fan blades?



Wow. Looks like that's about 2 ft x 3-4 ft. Next you'll be saying the hole is triangle shaped or diamond shaped and can't fit that.
that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.
stealth_0073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 11:00 PM   #15
mynameis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,549
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stealth_0073 View Post
that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.
Papercraft or paper mache? Whoa!!!
__________________
I can no longer have fair and intelligent conversation with people here, without them resorting to the use of personal attacks. I have been targeted as a scapegoat for my defensive actions. I cannot discuss new topics and stop the rampant amounts of misinformation when it happens, where it applies. If it can happen to me it can happen to you.
mynameis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2008, 11:48 PM   #16
stealth_0073
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

the engine planters at work




notice the abc7 van in background? this was were the ABM fake media crew
were hanging about, btw this was fox hijacking cbs live 9 feed
for a brief minute.
stealth_0073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 03:13 AM   #17
thematrix
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 311
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcolepticwatchman View Post
Congratulations. you have just posted a picture of some broken aluminium cladding.....not some bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns....which still have centres of approx 40".....making a gap of 26" ....still just over 2ft.
My apologies - it's the red box that shows the engine exit hole and not the yellow outline box in the previously posted pics.

NIST report showing trajectory of starboard engine pg 280 fig 6-10

NIST report fig 6-10 is captioned "Figure 6–10. Projected trajectory of the starboard engine of UAL 175 with an initial lateral
approach angle of 13°."

As the "box columns" formed the central core of the building and we can see that the engine trajectory didn't hit any of them (as calculated by NIST) how would you see "bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns" on the exterior of the building shortly after impact ???

There is a gaping hole at the corner of the exterior columns where the engine is said to have emerged that is plenty big enough for that engine piece to fit through.

The website where the photos are sourced in my previous post state that the red box outlines the exit point of the "napalm bomb" carried by whatever hit the tower - NIST claims it's the exit point of the engine. Draw your own conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stealth_0073
that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.
hardly

a pristine Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine as was fitted to N612UA (a 767-222) that was UA flight 175 on 9/11 looks like this diagram or this photo

You can see the front of the engine (the bit with all the fan blades) which is 93.3inches (237cm) in diameter minus the outside housing. The whole engine is 132.2 inches long (335.8cm) according to
As the engine in the photo is hardly this big it is safe to say that this engine piece is in anything but pristine condition and has NOT been "rolled out of the shop"

It looks to me as tho the piece that fell into the street is the front half of the engine minus the fan blades - tho if there are any aircraft engine experts that can identify this better I am all ears.
thematrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 11:14 AM   #18
stealth_0073
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrix View Post


hardly

a pristine Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine as was fitted to N612UA (a 767-222) that was UA flight 175 on 9/11 looks like this diagram or this photo

You can see the front of the engine (the bit with all the fan blades) which is 93.3inches (237cm) in diameter minus the outside housing. The whole engine is 132.2 inches long (335.8cm) according to here

As the engine in the photo is hardly this big it is safe to say that this engine piece is in anything but pristine condition and has NOT been "rolled out of the shop"

It looks to me as tho the piece that fell into the street is the front half of the engine minus the fan blades - tho if there are any aircraft engine experts that can identify this better I am all ears.


if an engine fly's threw air is it going land neatly under scaffold lol
without even a mark on ground and btw not one video shows an engine exiting from the towers ( i have searched every plane video known to man)



stealth_0073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 03:10 PM   #19
narcolepticwatchman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 513
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrix View Post
My apologies - it's the red box that shows the engine exit hole and not the yellow outline box in the previously posted pics.

NIST report showing trajectory of starboard engine pg 280 fig 6-10

NIST report fig 6-10 is captioned "Figure 6–10. Projected trajectory of the starboard engine of UAL 175 with an initial lateral
approach angle of 13°."

As the "box columns" formed the central core of the building and we can see that the engine trajectory didn't hit any of them (as calculated by NIST) how would you see "bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns" on the exterior of the building shortly after impact ???

There is a gaping hole at the corner of the exterior columns where the engine is said to have emerged that is plenty big enough for that engine piece to fit through.

The website where the photos are sourced in my previous post state that the red box outlines the exit point of the "napalm bomb" carried by whatever hit the tower - NIST claims it's the exit point of the engine. Draw your own conclusions.

Lol....flip, flop lets see ya flip again. The photo you have shown is nowhere clear enough to show an exit hole in the red box. You are referencing the NISt report....deary me....no point even arguing with you, next you'll be referencing popular mechanics....Finally, The permiter columns were also 'box' columns which were 14" sqaure......what else you want me to call them? Now you are being even more silly if that is at all possible.

As for mynameis....2ft x 3-4ft? did you eyeball that or have you done some analysis? Also, given that you may be right and there is an inch clearance either side (i'm not saying you are...this is just to blow you out of the water again) for the engin to fly out in the manner you have suggested, without touching the steelwork would mean that it would have to fly straight through the building, not hitting anything on its way....which it obviously must have cause theres loads missing, either still or spinning perfectly on its vertical axis.....remembering how far its supposed to have gone after the towers....in a word...proposterous.
narcolepticwatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 03:34 PM   #20
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameis View Post
Is it a habit that you believe anything you read on the internet? No. Go get a second opinion from a reliable source...K, thx.
Yes, I agree that I haven't researched this much. That's why I put in a '?'.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.