Jim Hoffman's argument is in opposition to the idea that there is any reason to suspect that the official descritption of the four hijacked 9/11 airliners were two 767's that crashed into the WTC towers, and two 757's, flights 77 and 93....
I posted his argument and the wrecked jet engine on Murray St., NYC photo links of the man who Jim Hoffman is challenging, Morgan Reynolds.
If I was Jim Hoffman, the most convincing way to rebut Morgan Reynold's contentions would be to dispute the authenticity of the Murray St. wrecked jet engine core photos. Jim Hoffman does not do that!
Hint: disputing the authenticity of the Murray St. photo would be the best way to weaken my argument. I don't see either Dilbert or Ustwo doing that. Before I spent time using the Murray St. photo as a starting point, I needed to increase my confidence that the photos are not fakes. So much of the 9/11 coverage that existed on the internet is now "gone". Most of the NY Times coverage is hidden behind "Times Select" premium access, for example.
FWIW there is this:
Quote:
From Google; search term: "jet engines was found at the corner of Murray"
[PDF] FEMA403 -- Chapter 2File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church. Streets. The extent to which debris scattered ...
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
|
The only reason that the Jim Hoffman linked quote box is in my post is to make the point that the photos are authentic. The photos are vital to my argument. I anticipated that they might be challenged as a hoax. I hope this post will prompt you to reevaluate my argument and the photo evidence and contrasts.
<b>Seaver posted</b>
Quote:
|
..........You haven't studied anything. You've looked at photos. I'm sure there are tons of crash experts out there who have studied these things. I'm sorry but you claiming to study these things does not give you any legitimacy.
|
Seaver, why are you angry?
To the extent that it took much time to find the photo links that I wanted to display, and hours of cropping and zooming to magnify and sharpen the images of the wrecked CFM56-3 vs. the photos of the intact one, until my eyes were bloodshot. I can defend the use of the word "studied" as an honest description.
Before "studying" the photo evidence, I only had an unfounded suspicion that the Murray St. photo showed that the wrecked jet engine core was too small to have powered a 767 airliner. Now....I am confident that what I see in the Murray St. photo, when it is rotated to an "upside down" position is nearly the entire core, compressed to about half it's pre-crash length, but approximately near to it's pre-crash width dimension. If you expand the size of the higher res photo avialble at the link that I provided, rotate it 180 degrees, and compare it to the wikipedia CFM56-3 photo, IMO, there are similar features, in the upper right areas of both photos.
Does this "prove" that the Murray St. photo shows a CFM56-3 engine core?
No.....but the study impresses me that there is almost no chance that the
Murray St. photo shows a P&W JTD9 engine core, which is what Flight 175 was known to be equipped with.
If there are "tons of experts" who support your opinion, IMO, it's reasonable to ask you to post the opinion, and some of his or her photo evidence, to counter my presentation and conclusion. You felt the need to come at me and my presentation in a strong manner....now back up what you say!