Unanswered Questions Surrounding Terrorist Attacks - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevo · 05-05-2006, 06:07 AM

So what are we debating now? All evidence points to 767's crashing into the WTC. No logical arguement can be made that controlled demolition brought down the towers. Its been shown that the fires in the towers as a result of the crash could have reached in excesss of 1100[deg]F and that the towers collapsed onto the damaged floors first and then pancaked down. SO are we just humoring will and host, or are we done and this thread can be moved to paranoia?

ubertuber · 05-05-2006, 06:34 AM

Here's where I think we are (and others may disagree, remembering that I'm not the last word on debate points):

- The preponderance of evidence points to 767s crashing into the WTC.
- At this point, it seems that the fires in the towers could have burned hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of the steel frame. In combination with physical damage, this may have been enough to bring the towers down.
- Given the above point, an extremely persuasive argument would have to be made that the true cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was a controlled demolition.

With respect to the previous three posters, I'd prefer not to move this thread into paranoia. Thus far, it has certainly been rooted in discussion of rational and proveable concepts. I'd like to keep it here for several reasons: 1) because someone may have more to add (and we should remain open to that possibility), 2) because we may wish to refer to it in the future and the current content is acceptable for this space, and 3) (related to 3) this was a fine discussion and I don't think it should be marginalized by assigning it to the realm of crazy speculation - willravel's effort deserves more respect than that.

samcol · 05-05-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So what are we debating now? All evidence points to 767's crashing into the WTC. No logical arguement can be made that controlled demolition brought down the towers. Its been shown that the fires in the towers as a result of the crash could have reached in excesss of 1100[deg]F and that the towers collapsed onto the damaged floors first and then pancaked down. SO are we just humoring will and host, or are we done and this thread can be moved to paranoia?

Yes, I'd like to discuss an issue that is much more cut and dry. Why where there drills on 9/11 depicting planes flying into buildings? I've seen multiple mainstream news reports of these events, and even Rumsfeld and Myers were questioned about it so there's no doubt the drills did happen.

With the 9/11 commission's claim that 9/11 was above all a failure of imagination (no one thought that planes could be used as missles, we all heard it), how could they totally ignore this glaring problem with the 9/11 story? This means either A. total incompetence therefore making the 9/11 report and suggestions null and void, or B. a 9/11 cover-up. These events were just to important to be excluded from the report. I'd like your comments on this please.

Quote:

Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill ... last Sept. 11WASHINGTON (AP) — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident. Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved — to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 — the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon — took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

How do you get everyone in government to ignore standard operating procedure? You schedule drills similar to the real events on the same day as the attacks, thus allowing them to happen.

stevo · 05-05-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Yes, I'd like to discuss an issue that is much more cut and dry. Why where there drills on 9/11 depicting planes flying into buildings? I've seen multiple mainstream news reports of these events, and even Rumsfeld and Myers were questioned about it so there's no doubt the drills did happen.

With the 9/11 commission's claim that 9/11 was above all a failure of imagination (no one thought that planes could be used as missles, we all heard it), how could they totally ignore this glaring problem with the 9/11 story? This means either A. total incompetence therefore making the 9/11 report and suggestions null and void, or B. a 9/11 cover-up. These events were just to important to be excluded from the report. I'd like your comments on this please.

my comments would closely follow rekna's

Quote:

The government has not been completly truthfull about 9/11 but I do not believe they in any way orchistrated it. Planes did hit the buildings and cause them to colapse. What else is being proposed here? Our government somehow managed to load the building up with explosives on the supports without anyone noticing? What the government has not been truthful about is it's knowledge before, during, and after. It had enough info to probably stop the attack but ignored the warning signs because they had a "we are America and it can never happen mentality" So in some sense there was a coverup but the coverup was not of some mass conspiracy but instead of a mass blundering done at all levels of the government. In addition the administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push it's agenda and acted accordingly, i would not be surprised if their was a meeting within days of 9/11 that discussed how they can use 9/11 and the emotions of people to push their agenda. Anyway thats my 2 cents because it is the explaination that is the simplest and fits the evidence as I see it.

We all know the government had some kind of intel pointing towards this. The whole partiot act comes from the fact that they had the intel, but had difficulties acting on it because of barriers put up (by a previous administration). Between barriers in sharing information and the "it can't happen here" mentality this catastrophy was "allowed" to happen. An embarresment it is. To minimalize the embarresment politicians act in less than honest ways. But to take that and spin it into a conspiracy theory that 767s really didn't hit the WTC or there were bombs set up for a controlled demolition is, how can I put this, ludacris.

What is more embarresing than the fact these attacks happend is the fact that there are people who believe the government orchestrated it. Its an embarresment to america and an insult to the victims and their families. Quite frankly, is a prime illustration of the guilt some people carry. A guilt they try to reconcile by not blaming the terrorists actually involved, but blaming the government, in a way to say, "see its not my fault," when they feel it actually is.

I'm not saying this is america's falut. But some of my fellow countrymen do carry that burden unnecessarily, and to deal with it some act as if its not the terrorist who carried out the attacks, but the government. In this way they can remove the guilt, since the terrorists didn't do it, well then, its not america's fault. Just the evil republicans.

Criticize me all you want for my armchair-psycoanalysis, I welcome it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-05-2006, 07:57 AM

I have a question for the 9/11 conspiracists(sp).

How does Al Qaeda fit into this. If it were not them who acted, if OBL, or Zawihiri, or Atta, or any other Al Qaeda affiliate didn't act, who did then? Was it the government? Was it the Mossad trying to prompt US action against its Islamic/Arabic foes? What is the governments motivation? How do you explain the fault in logic brought about in Seaver's post in post #73? It would seem that OBL and Al Qaeda convieniently(sp) took the fall for the US government on this one; not to mention there is no way to corraberate their involvement by their other actions world wide(sarcasm). Going with my sarcasm and corraberating historical fact, OBL and Al Qaeda have no involvement in terrorism against the US, sans the Embassy bombings, Somalia, USS Cole, or action in Al Qaeda.

Now this really doesn't have to degrade into the realm of conspiracy. I just want some clarafication on the matter. So Will, Host, or any other person inclined to hold believes of a similar nature, if you could, I would like you to sysnthesize a theory for me, again a theory doesn't how to fall into the realm of conspiracy. What was the motivation for the attacks? Who was the primary actor? Did the US work with Al Qaeda? Does Al Qaeda even exist? Does OBL exist?

So many questions, brought about by all this "evidence". What's the deal?

** Edited out of respect for Will and Uber**

Dilbert1234567 · 05-05-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

How do you get everyone in government to ignore standard operating procedure? You schedule drills similar to the real events on the same day as the attacks, thus allowing them to happen.

Well reverse it, how do you pull off a major attack against the US; you plan it on the same day they are running an exercise that mirrors it. The plan to run this drill it had been planned for several months, the terrorist had been planning since 98, and maybe they caught wind of the Exercise and changed the date.

That would be just as big of a coincidence as yours.

ubertuber · 05-05-2006, 09:32 AM

I think posts 85-88 would be more at home in the thread in Tilted Paranoia. It's important to try to make a distinction.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-05-2006, 09:47 AM

I don't see how my post fits into Paranoia. In this thread there has been an abundance of information and "evidence" laid out. I'm simply seeking to find an answer, or rather have certain members here explain what the evidence means in form of a theory. All the evidence in the world is grand, but it seems ultimately useless if it doesn't seem to represent something larger.

docbungle · 05-05-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Docbungle, I think will is trying to show us that, while planes crashed into the building, that impact and the resulting fire were not enough to account for the collapse of the buildings that followed. I'm not trying to steal his thunder, but if will can convince people that the force of impact and heat of the burning jet fuel shouldn't have caused a collapse like the one we saw, we'll have to start thinking about what other factors could have been present.

Uber, this is the problem with conspiracy theories such as this one. You and others are saying that, even though these planes crashed into the tower, that was not the reason the tower fell because, well, the towers are supposed to be strong enough to handle it.

You know, the Dallas Stars were supposed to be strong enough to beat the Avalanche in the playoffs this year, but they got creamed.

What's "supposed" to happen isn't really ironclad in the real world.

What's supposed to happen is an assumption, based on other things that have happened. Not the other way around. We can't change something that happened by saying it wasn't supposed to happen that way because it doesn't match my calculations.

What it does mean is that you need to change your calculations , because they are obviously flawed. Because what happened will not be reversing itself to fit into nice, tidy, neat little calculations for you.

When was the last time you saw two jetliners crashed into a building the size of the World Trade Center on a test run, just to test out the structual integrity of the building? That's right, never. So you'r calculations are nothing more than speculation. Because they haven't been tested in a controlled environment to match the real world conditions we are "debating."

Dilbert1234567 · 05-05-2006, 10:23 AM

Ok lets get this back on track.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I am asking you (the reader) to please refute these.

So how are we doing, have we convinced you yet that it did happen as the report says (or close there of). If not, what are you still not convinced of and let’s focus on that.

Willravel · 05-05-2006, 07:36 PM

This picture is what is holding me up. Look at the South Tower, both the location of the core and also the impact. Now look at the North Tower and it's impact. The South Tower was hit at an angle that sprayed a lot (I do not know the amount) of fuel out of the building in the explosion. The North Tower was hit directly, which meant that it is likely to have had much more fuel in the building, and less being sprayed out of the building. The plane that hit the North Tower went directly into the core, which woudl suggest that it should have done a lot more damage. The plane that hit the South Tower did not hit the core head on, and presumabally did a lot less damage.

To review:
North Tower: More damage, more fuel (more fire)
South Tower: Less damage, less fuel (less fire)

This is confusing considering the South Tower collapsed in 47 minutes and the North Tower collapsed in 104 minutes. If you'd like to focus on that, I'd appreciate it.

Poppinjay · 05-05-2006, 07:50 PM

Will, your confusion assumes that the towers were identical, had identical offices within, and identical populations wearing identical clothes. And everybody had an identical number of post it notes.

1 WTC was actually a bigger building, that could have something to do with the fact it took longer to collapse. Some of the floors were built to support transmission facilities for the majority of NYC's radio and TV stations. That could have something to do with it. It also had a re-inforced roof to sustain a transmission tower.

cyrnel · 05-05-2006, 07:54 PM

Will, call me a skeptic but I can't see this going anywhere. You need high-rise structural engineers, jet aircraft engineers, crash investigators, etc. Nobody I've seen here so far has the required expertise or the data to provide more than educated conjecture. We could come up with numerous explanations that are equally plausible given our outside perspective plus the varying quality of building materials and general accident randomness. This seems like a severe case of armchairquarterbackitis.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-05-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

To review:
North Tower: More damage, more fuel (more fire)
South Tower: Less damage, less fuel (less fire)

This is confusing considering the South Tower collapsed in 47 minutes and the North Tower collapsed in 104 minutes. If you'd like to focus on that, I'd appreciate it.

Well you’re missing some stuff. The south tower was hit much lower then the north tower, meaning more weight above the point of structural weakness, about twice as much. They both suffered similar impacts, the planes for the most part stayed inside of the building, transferring all there kinetic energy. The jet fuel was only the catalyst that started the fires and would burn up quickly. But it was not just jet fuel burning, think of tossing a small cup of gasoline in a house and lighting it, it will burn quickly but start the rest of the building going. The gas starts the fire, but the building is what actually destroys itself.

host · 05-05-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

Will, call me a skeptic but I can't see this going anywhere. You need high-rise structural engineers, jet aircraft engineers, crash investigators, etc. Nobody I've seen here so far has the required expertise or the data to provide more than educated conjecture. We could come up with numerous explanations that are equally plausible given our outside perspective plus the varying quality of building materials and general accident randomness. This seems like a severe case of armchairquarterbackitis.

BINGO....cyrnel.....hard work. The challenge I am exploring is much easier than willravels...I cannot punctuate....posting from my pda.
I am 200 miles from home on an overnite trip....walked out of the house friday without my laptop.

I compiled a new photo presentation last night but did not get a chance to post it B4 I left.

All I have to do is raise enough doubt about the govmnt claimed model and mfg. of the sole recovered WTC jet engine core to
silence most critics and ignite some media interest and the issue should take on a life of its own.......

I am more convinced that this is a cfm56 dash 3 now than yesterday. Take a look....now documented with name of official and the photographer......
http://www.uplnj.org/crr/CRRDB/data/documents/3250.htm

I have a higher res comparison pic that I will post in my presentation when I get home Sat. evening.

If you want a headstart....download the landfill pic and check out the nozzle seats where the tubing has not been ripped out. They are to the right of the holes left by the torn out nozzles. Compare the triangular nozzle seats to the ones in the wiki site high res photo on the cfm56 3 page. Then go to the pratt and whitney site and look for pics of their JTD9 7 engine. There is a page on their site that displays 4 pics of that model.....thar powered flt 175.. One photo is a shot of that engine core. Compare it to the wiki and landfill pics......or wait for my pic post later. I am not required to explain why the WTC engine is not from a 767....

cyrnel · 05-05-2006, 10:46 PM

You shouldn't need a huge groundswell. Who did the official investigation? DHS wasn't around yet. FBI? NTSB? Independent contractors in their employ? The information should be available via FOIA, no? Get a few industry experts to ID the pictured engine blind - maybe even start with airline mechanics - and compare their guesses to the official report. I know a couple mechanics but their bigbody experience is dated. If even a few guys who work on the things daily match your suspicion you'll have something to go on. Or not.

Somehow I doubt I'm the first to flail in this direction.

host · 05-05-2006, 10:49 PM

someone in a previous said that the jet engine core was enveloped in fire. How could that be possible if it impacted a building at over 400 mph...crashed out the side of the building and still had momentum to come to rest six blocks away and 80 stories lower?

Suppose a car bomb destroyed my house and the bomb car. The police inspect the debris and then tell me that they have the bomber in custody and he cannot account for his missing V6 powered Ford Taurus. I hire workers to clear the debris off my house lot. I notify the police that a mangled car engine block and a wheel were found in the debris. Police come back...inspect the engine block....confirm that it is from a v6 Taurus and arrest the suspect with the missing Taurus.

But...I am suspicious...the engine block sure looks like a 4 cylinder block. I pay a tech from the local Ford garage 20 bucks to inspect the wrecked engine. He thinks its a 4 Cyl for a Toyota Corolla. I tell the police the news. Their response is that the guy they arrested must have bombed my house....his car is missing. The cops tell me that I should not have sought an outside opinion about the actual size and model of the bombed engine block....unless I was prepared to tell them who actually bombed my house....why.. and with which model car. Otherwise...they know they got the guy who did it. He was trained as an army combat engineer...had a grudge against my son....and....his car was missing......

Dilbert1234567 · 05-05-2006, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

BINGO....cyrnel.....hard work. The challenge I am exploring is much easier than willravels...I cannot punctuate....posting from my pda.
I am 200 miles from home on an overnite trip....walked out of the house friday without my laptop.

I compiled a new photo presentation last night but did not get a chance to post it B4 I left.

All I have to do is raise enough doubt about the govmnt claimed model and mfg. of the sole recovered WTC jet engine core to
silence most critics and ignite some media interest and the issue should take on a life of its own.......

I am more convinced that this is a cfm56 dash 3 now than yesterday. Take a look....now documented with name of official and the photographer......
http://www.uplnj.org/crr/CRRDB/data/documents/3250.htm

I have a higher res comparison pic that I will post in my presentation when I get home Sat. evening.

If you want a headstart....download the landfill pic and check out the nozzle seats where the tubing has not been ripped out. They are to the right of the holes left by the torn out nozzles. Compare the triangular nozzle seats to the ones in the wiki site high res photo on the cfm56 3 page. Then go to the pratt and whitney site and look for pics of their JTD9 7 engine. There is a page on their site that displays 4 pics of that model.....thar powered flt 175.. One photo is a shot of that engine core. Compare it to the wiki and landfill pics......or wait for my pic post later. I am not required to explain why the WTC engine is not from a 767....

The following quote is taken from http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulle...426&highlight=

Quote:

I'm going to BURY this stupid notion on the parts of some individuals who can do nothing but MUDDY UP THE 9-11 WATERS with their unsubstantiated claims that Boeing 737s were used in the bogus, faked and staged 9-11 "Arab" terrorist attacks on the NYC WTC Twin Towers:

Here is what the Combustion Chamber Case of a CF6 looks like from GE Aircraft Engine's own CF6 technical manual:
http://www.911-strike.com/CF6-80C2.jpg

Here are two pictures of the jet engine wreckage picked off the streets of New York City as a result of the 9-11 "Arab" terrorist attacks:

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ils.do?id=5473

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ils.do?id=5474

Go ahead and download the "High Resolution" photograph version and COMPARE the ports into which the jet engine's fuel nozzles are inserted CLOSELY & CAREFULLY.

Do notice that the fuel nozzle mounting pads are triangular in shape with three threarded inserts for three bolts at each angle of the triangular mouting pad. And pay CLOSE ATTENTION as to which way the triangle shaped pad is "pointing" (a single bolting insert in the triangle point which is 'pointing' towards THE FRONT OF the engine.)

Here is a photograph of a CFM56:

http://www.albadawi.be/GRAPHIC/cfm56-3.jpg

Use a magnifying glass if you need to, and examine which 'way' the triangular mounting pads for the fuel nozzles are pointing - (they are all pointing towards the REAR of the CFM56).

Notice the nearly 90 radial angle to the CFM56 engine's center line by which the CFM56's FUEL NOZZLES are aligned to the engine. Notice the fuel leakage/seepage metallic 'jar' which connects the fuel nozzle to TWO fuel lines - one fuel line connects to either the left hand or right hand fuel supply manifold - one fuel line connects to either the left or right hand fuel DRAIN manifold.

The CF6 utilizes TWENTY-SIX fuel nozzles which are mounted to mounting pads on the combustion chamber case - each pad measures about 2 1/4" across any side of its triangular shape - and each mounting pad is separated by about 5/8" of spacing.

The CFM56 utilizes TWENTY fuel nozzles which are mounted to mouting pads on the combustion chamber case - each pad measures about 2 1/4" across any side of its triangular shape - and each mounting pad is separated by about 1 1/2" of spacing.

The BULLSH&TING B@NEHEAD(S) who have been insisting they discovered the 'real' jet engine type (from lousy photographs) which they claim "proves" it was a Boeing 737 used in the 9-11 WTC Twin Towers and who had the audacity to claim some yak-a-doodle working in a jet engine overhaul facility on Rense.com don't know which end of a jet engine SUCKS and which end of the jet engine BLOWS.

The 'rough measurements' I've provided to all of you above were just some 'quick measurements' I took on the CF6's and the CFM56's in the engine shop of my airline.

That's 'THE END' of my dealing with these JERKS with their BOEING 737 claims!

- tocarm

(The following photos are big, so I will not directly link them to save the host some bandwidth)

Here is a wonderful picture of a Cfm56-5b, what you claim it is.

http://www.enginehistory.org/G&jJBro...2/Cfm56-5b.jpg

Please notice the small size of the pipes above the sign, and then look at

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg

And notice that the in the same location, the pipes are more than twice the diameter, and going the wrong direction. And we see a pipe encircling the engine in the crash photo, which is not in a Cfm56, but low and behold is in a CF6 engine.

http://www.enginehistory.org/G&jJBro...2/Cf6-80c2.jpg

Go back and look at the photo's.

ubertuber · 05-06-2006, 09:33 AM

I may be wrong, but I doubt the NTSB did much investigation. They determine probable causes of plane crashes, which in this case wasn't really in doubt. And now that the evidence is gone, they couldn't do much except work their magic with the flight recorders. My Dad works there in a capacity that would make him aware of their involvement. I'll ask him about it tonight.

Willravel · 05-06-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I may be wrong, but I doubt the NTSB did much investigation. They determine probable causes of plane crashes, which in this case wasn't really in doubt. And now that the evidence is gone, they couldn't do much except work their magic with the flight recorders. My Dad works there in a capacity that would make him aware of their involvement. I'll ask him about it tonight.

I look forward to his input! Finding experts would be helpful in this discussion, I will contact some people and invite them.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-06-2006, 10:04 PM

willravel, were you satisfied by my answer why the south tower fell first? (post 96)

host · 05-06-2006, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

The following quote is taken from http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulle...426&highlight=
.......

......(The following photos are big, so I will not directly link them to save the host some bandwidth)

Here is a wonderful picture of a Cfm56-5b, what you claim it is.

http://www.enginehistory.org/G&jJBro...2/Cfm56-5b.jpg

Please notice the small size of the pipes above the sign, and then look at

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg

And notice that the in the same location, the pipes are more than twice the diameter, and going the wrong direction. And we see a pipe encircling the engine in the crash photo, which is not in a Cfm56, but low and behold is in a CF6 engine.

http://www.enginehistory.org/G&jJBro...2/Cf6-80c2.jpg

Go back and look at the photo's.

Here's a closeup of what appeared to me to be a CFM56-3 engine, recovered from Murray St. and displayed on the FEMA site as photographed on Oct. 16, 2001, that you offer as a CF6......

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/CF6.jpeg">
If you are right, the question is, what aircraft did it come from? FEMA reported that it came from Flight 175. The CF6 is made by the same manufacturer as the CFM56-3. The similarities, as you posted, are there, but the subtle differences, to me, a layman, may have escaped me. I am looking for inconsistancies in the official account of what happened on 9/11. I still am looking at the same one.....where did the engine that the government claimed was torn off of Flight 175 on impact, actually come from? There is no official report that it came from anywhere but flight 175, and no report that flight 175 was powered by a "CF" or a "CFM" set of engines.

My other posts refer to Flight 175 being powered by twin Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7 engines. I never posted anything about a CFM56-5b. I did post about the CFM56-3 model that powers 737-300 models and newer.

My research sez that <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-1">flight 175 was powered</a> by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines, not CF6 or CFM56-3 engines. Popular Mechanics and Fema reported that the only engine found was from flight 175 that flew into WTC 2.......
(see below)

(Flight 11, however was reported to be <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-0&lang=en">powered by CF6-80A2 engines</a>, but no official claim has been made that a jet engine from that 767 was recovered.)

Quote:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=3&c=y

Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM:
FACT

...........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.

Quote:

PDF= http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf (page 27)
or http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm

2.2.2 WTC 2

2.2.2.1 Initial Damage From Aircraft Impact

United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th floors.......

.....Figure 2-26 Impact damage to the south and east faces of WTC 2.

were fractured by the impact. Photographic evidence suggests that from 27 to 32 columns along the south building face were destroyed over a five-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this zone appears to have occurred over a horizontal length of approximately 70 feet, while floors in other portions of the building appeared to remain intact. It is probable that the columns in the southeast corner of the core also experienced some damage because they would have been in the direct travel path of the fuselage and port engine (Figure 2-25).

It is known that debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, a landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 was found to have crashed through the roof of a building 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 throughout the impact floors is also evidenced by photographs of the fireballs that occurred as the aircraft struck the building (Figure 2-28). Figure 2-29 shows a portion of the fuselage of the aircraft, lying on the roof of WTC 5.

and for uber and will:

Quote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...23X00104&key=1

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA063.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N612UA
Injuries: 65 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

Willravel · 05-07-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

Well you’re missing some stuff. The south tower was hit much lower then the north tower, meaning more weight above the point of structural weakness, about twice as much. They both suffered similar impacts, the planes for the most part stayed inside of the building, transferring all there kinetic energy. The jet fuel was only the catalyst that started the fires and would burn up quickly. But it was not just jet fuel burning, think of tossing a small cup of gasoline in a house and lighting it, it will burn quickly but start the rest of the building going. The gas starts the fire, but the building is what actually destroys itself.

The South Tower was hit lower, but had much less structural damage. There was not a direct impact with the core, as there was with the North Tower.
Okay the jet fuel was only a catalyst, but how the fires started would effect the way the fires burned after the fuel burned out. As there was less fuel that started the fire in the South Tower, it would have less of an effect. I know from records that as far as other fuel for the fire - office furniture, paper, computers, etc. - the buildings were basically identical. If they have both been hit identically, they should have burned at the same rate. Imgaine you have two identical cars, you spill a gallon of gas in one, and 4 gallons in another. Which shoudl burn up faster?

The_Jazz · 05-07-2006, 05:36 AM

Will, if the fuel is burned in identical places in the cars, the fire should burn equal fast in both. However, if the 4 gallons is in the closed trunk and the 1 gallon is in the cabin, the car with the smaller amount will burn faster since it is a better environment with more non-gasoline fuel available.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-07-2006, 10:11 AM

Ok, first to willravel, this is his thread after all:

If I spill a gallon of gas, and a cup of gas in 2 identical houses (roughly equal in size to the amount that fueled the fires, relative to there size) it is true that the gallon will get the house burning faster, but each will reach raging inferno relatively quickly. In the towers, the fires were burning in full force after a short time, but the south tower collapsed first, because it had more weight above the points of impact, causing more force to be applied to the weakening girders and support. By the time the first towers collapse, they were both fully engulfed in flames, but due to the extra force applied from above the south tower fell first.

As for the amount of structural damage, actually the south tower got it worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Locations.jpg
The main fuselage hit the corner of the support of the building, not the center, the corners provide much more support then the sides do.

Also check out this link, it’s a good explanation of the collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

To host:

You are right you never said it was a CFM56-5b. you did post about the CFM56-3 model, and the 2 models are virtually identical in design. Here is a picture of the CFM56-3, and please note the small piping, much smaller than the picture you think is of a CFM56-3
http://www.albadawi.be/GRAPHIC/cfm56-3.jpg

As for it being a CF6, I was not as clear as I should have been, the engine in this photo http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg is a CF6, but it is a different engine then the one on Murray and Church St. The part found on Murray http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...cengines2.html is clearly different from the other photo of a CF6.

Here are the best 4 pictures of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D I could find:

http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/image...taway_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_3_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_2_high.jpg

The photo of the engine on Murray Street is to badly damage to do a visual inspection and identify it; it does show similarities with the JT9D-7R4D. But the part is to mangled up; the only visible parts are mangled metal and some tubing, which all jet engines have in abundance. The photo is beyond recognition visually, especially with people with out any training like us. It’s like taking a wrecked car, putting it in a car crusher, burning it, taking a picture of it, and asking some one who does not know about cars, what year it was made in based off of the picture alone. An expert with hands on access to the car could do it, but no one else.

Your problem is you are looking at 2 different engines and thinking they are the same. The picture on Murray Street and the picture you keep showing are different.

host · 05-08-2006, 08:28 AM

Dilbert, if the picture that I "keep showing"...is different than the engine photgraped on Murray St., where would the landfill jet engine pics from the FEMA website, have come from? The landfill was closed on March 21, 2001, after operating since 1948. It was only reopened to receive WTC 9/11 rubble.

There is yellow "crime scene" tape visible in both FEMA photos...here are the links and the captions:

Quote:

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ils.do?id=5474
New York, NY, October 16, 2001 -- Federal Coordinating Officer Ted Monette with NYPD (airplane engine in foreground) at the Staten Island landfill. Photo by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ils.do?id=5473
New York, NY, October 16, 2001 -- Federal Coordinating Officer Ted Monette with FBI look at engine of plane at the Staten Island landfill . Photo by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo

The following report indicates that it is doubtful than another WTC hijacked airliner engine combustion chamber was found...it was unprecedented that the flight and data recorder "black boxes were not found...

Quote:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/24/Wo...ets__bla.shtml
(Richard Pyle AP)

Still, both jets' black boxes remain unfound
By Associated Press
February 24, 2002

But the attacks were an unprecedented survival test for the misnamed "black boxes." The two wide-bodied jets, carrying 157 people including 10 hijackers, were mostly destroyed by the fires and collapsing towers.

"It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders," said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board.

"So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way to quantify it," FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several pieces of landing gear.

"Of course we know what happened on Sept. 11, but it goes beyond that," Valiquette said. "We don't know what was said in the cockpits, by the crew members or by the hijackers. Is there language implicating other individuals who might have been involved? Is al-Qaida mentioned? Is there idle chatter about other plans for that day or subsequently?"

The rest of the quote boxes that follow, indicate to me that the authorities in charge of the 9/11 attacks "investigation" gave us information about what they found.....or in the case of the flight 175 and flight 11 "black boxes.....didn't find.....that defies credulity. The last quote box shows the DOJ admitting that FBI agents "looted" the WTC and Oklahoma Murrah building investigation scenes, for souveniers, and that Agent Marx, in charge of the Fresh Kill landfill WTC evidence, failed a polygraph and lied to investigators.
The FBI had no written policy, in Oklahoma in 1995 or after 9/11 that prohibited it's agents from looting evidence from those "terror" attacks.

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...686025,00.html
Posted Sunday, Aug. 22, 2004

......The travel monograph reveals numerous mistakes by State Department and INS officials that made it easier for the hijackers to repeatedly gain access to the U.S. It also includes a chilling appendix with graphic reproductions of available travel documents for the hijackers — including Jarrah’s partly burned U.S. visa, recovered from the Pennsylvania field where he perished in the crash of United Flight 93. .........
<img src="http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/911/images/jarrah.jpg">

Quote:

Al-Suqami's passport was recovered near the WTC the morning of 9/11, according to the 9/11 Commission Report (footnote 109, p.40): "The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC-2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001."

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2004-01-26.htm
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing
Monday, January 26, 2004
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

....MS. SUSAN GINSBURG: Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. To avoid getting into classified detail, we will just state that these were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda.....

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0403a/index.htm
An Investigation Regarding Removal of a Tiffany Globe from the Fresh Kills Recovery Site

December 2003
Office of the Inspector General

.....In addition, we found that the FBI had no written policy on what could be taken from recovery sites. One person from another ERT at Fresh Kills, identified by two members of the Minneapolis ERT as the individual who said they could take souvenirs, told us that there was an "informal policy" that permitted ERT members to take small pieces of the granite building facade as mementos. He said he thought that ERT members also could take what he called "tourist trash," which he described as small items such as refrigerator magnets with the WTC logo.....

........In the course of our investigation we interviewed Richard Marx, an FBI Special Agent from Philadelphia who was identified as the FBI site manager for the Fresh Kills recovery site. We asked him what he had advised FBI employees about removing items from the recovery site as mementos. Marx provided inconsistent answers to us that, in our view, showed a lack of candor. In addition, Marx's vague and inconsistent answers prolonged our investigation considerably.

Marx initially had told FBI OPR in its investigation that he had advised people that he did not want them taking things from Fresh Kills. However, in his first interview with the OIG, he was non-committal as to what he had told ERT members about taking items from the site, but he told us he was not aware of anyone from the FBI taking items.

In our second interview of Marx, he said that his previous statements were not accurate as to what he had told ERT members about taking items. He said it was more accurate to state that he told ERT members that any items not being retained for evidence or for identifying victims were trash. He stated that he did not tell ERT members they could take these items, but he did not tell them they could not. He added that he was not concerned with "souvenir taking." However, he refused to sign his sworn statement memorializing his OIG interview, and stated that he was going to retain an attorney.....

......Marx's polygraph also indicated deception in his answers, and he had no response to the result. We believe that his lack of candor constituted misconduct that warrants discipline.

Finally, many FBI employees took rubble as souvenirs from Fresh Kills, and a wide disparity of opinion existed as to whether it was appropriate to do so. We also learned that FBI personnel have taken mementos from other response sites, such as the bombing of the Alfred J. Murrah Federal building and the Unabomber's cabin. The removal of items by FBI personnel from an incident site can cause ramifications. For instance, we learned that as a result of [REDACTED] removal of the globe the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute a civilian fro taking a fire truck door from Fresh Kills site. The prosecuting attorney told us that she did not believe she could prosecute a civilian fro taking a memento from the site, when an FBI agent had done a similar thing.

We found no written FBI policy governing what could be taken from recovery sites or mass crime scenes, like the World Trade Center or Fresh Kills. We recommend that the FBI develop formal written guidance that addresses the taking of mementos from recovery sites by FBI employees. As part of this policy, the FBI should also create a written. procedure for the removal of items from recovery sites for display in FBI Offices for instruction in FBI training, or for use as memorials.

No black boxes were recovered from the WTC, but a passport was.....no wreckage of flight 93 can be observed at the Shanksville "crash" site....but two passports (or visas) linked to two of the nineteen hijackers were said to be recovered there.

host · 05-08-2006, 09:18 AM

Dilbert, the links that you submitted in the post before your last one, support my contention that the wrecked jet engine core photos are of GE/CFAN design.....your sources say CF6, my photo comparison below shows similarities between the CFM56-3 photo on the wiki site page.

The comments that you quoted, about the CF6 were arrogant in their certainty. This does not bode well for the official line (FEMA) that the engine is from P&W powered flight 175!

In your last post, you also throw in the possibility that the wreckage is from a P&W JT9D-7 design. I see nothing that indicates a P&W source, but I do see simliarites in the upper right of each photo, that support a CFM56-3 source. The weakest evidence is that this is P&W jet engine wreckage, but the official line is that it has to be....
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/streetsm.JPG">
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wikism.JPG">
Here's a closeup of a shot from the Naudet brothers 8/11 docu film. It's teken from the other side of the Murray St. engine, (same engine as in top photo)
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc2eng.jpg"><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/filmst.JPG"></center>
The last set of photos indicate that the larger closeup in the first photo, is from the opposite side of the engine, the side that was "shortened" by the impact of the initial crash into a WTC tower...or whatever this engine core previously hit.

Here's a cropped close up of your linked photo:
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg
There is a chance that we do not have a similar angle, but I see no similarity of the wreckage photos to the engine that Flight 175 was supposed to have,
this P&W JT9D-7.....
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/PWsm.JPG">

Dilbert1234567 · 05-08-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Dilbert, if the picture that I "keep showing"...is different than the engine photgraped on Murray St., where would the landfill jet engine pics from the FEMA website, have come from? The landfill was closed on March 21, 2001, after operating since 1948. It was only reopened to receive WTC 9/11 rubble.

Let’s try this again, the land fill that you mention contains all the wreckage from the disaster, including all the parts of all the planes. The photo that you show in the land fill is clearly different then the one on Murray Street. There were 2 planes, with 2 engines each; this is from the other plane. Bottom line, the 2 are different. As for identification, I’m going to give up on it; it’s ludicrous for anyone with out training and direct access to it to identify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The following report indicates that it is doubtful than another WTC hijacked airliner engine combustion chamber was found...it was unprecedented that the flight and data recorder "black boxes were not found...

Every part of the plane was recovered, whether in a recognizable form or not, it all was found. The bright orange black boxes are located in the land fill, crushes and burned beyond recognition, but they are there. To think that some one would take the black box and get away with it is crazy; they're pretty heavy and not easy to walk off with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The rest of the quote boxes that follow, indicate to me that the authorities in charge of the 9/11 attacks "investigation" gave us information about what they found.....or in the case of the flight 175 and flight 11 "black boxes.....didn't find.....that defies credulity. The last quote box shows the DOJ admitting that FBI agents "looted" the WTC and Oklahoma Murrah building investigation scenes, for souveniers, and that Agent Marx, in charge of the Fresh Kill landfill WTC evidence, failed a polygraph and lied to investigators.
The FBI had no written policy, in Oklahoma in 1995 or after 9/11 that prohibited it's agents from looting evidence from those "terror" attacks.

The size of the black box matched against the total amount of rubble is the reason they are not found. And they are designed to survive a plane crash, not a falling building; most likely they were ripped to shreds in the collapse. And as for poly graphs, they are unreliable at best, so much that they are not admissible as evidence in a trial, its built on junk science and is not reliable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No black boxes were recovered from the WTC, but a passport was.....no wreckage of flight 93 can be observed at the Shanksville "crash" site....but two passports (or visas) linked to two of the nineteen hijackers were said to be recovered there.

Sure, they are light and may have been blown out of the building; strange things are recovered from all disasters. But this is just irrelevant, unless you are claiming that they were planted evidence, if you are, just come out and say it, and then back it up.

As for no wreckage at the crash site of flight 93, did you just not look?

From http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200060-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200061-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200062-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200063-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200064-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200065-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200066-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200069-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-2.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00111-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200057-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200058-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200059-1.jpg

As to your second post, I must admit I am guilty of being arrogant in my certainty, I trusted your comparison of the 2 engines, the one found on Murray Street and the one in the land fill, you said that they were the same, and the land fill picture was a higher quality version of the Murray street engine, you were wrong, they are clearly 2 different engines, but since I did not check you, instead trusting you could see if to photos were of the same object (I thought a valid assumption) I did all my identification on the picture from the land fill, which I still think looks like a CF6. But no, the picture on Murray Street I still think is unidentifiable by me, or you, or anyone else on this forum. To me the Murray Street has similar features to a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D, but could really be anything.

And lastly, host please stop revising your old post in this thread, its hard to have an honest conversation if you keep changing the record of your post. Change spelling, punctuation etc, but don’t change and add things to your old post.

cause that's just lame.

host · 05-08-2006, 10:31 PM

Dilbert, the "arrogance" I was referring to was this quote that you posted that actually, as I said, reinforces my opinion....

The quote was linked to a post on letsroll.org ....it ended with:

Quote:

That's 'THE END' of my dealing with these JERKS with their BOEING 737 claims!

- tocarm

You certainly have no reason to defend against a criticism that your tone was arrogant.....it has never been, IMO.

I found this...it took a lot of searching. This should be about finding the actual facts....not about how accurate any of our opinions are. In that spirit, if the nytimes was correct, I am wrong about the landfill picture, and you, Dilbert, are right!

Near the bottom of this nytimes article, there is this:
(I subscribe to newsbank...and I read the whole article....)

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/21/nyregion/21BELO.html
http://eric.stamen.com/2001/10/great...ut-effort.html
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE LANDFILL
At Landfill, Tons of Debris, Slivers of Solace
New York Times, The (NY)
October 21, 2001
Author: DAN BARRY and AMY WALDMAN

........Inspector Luongo said that originally he had hoped almost to recreate Lower Manhattan on the landfill -- to coordinate the piles of debris in exact relation to downtown streets. But, he said, "I defy anyone to tell me where everything came from."

And so he has sought to bring order to the chaos. Along the perimeter are rows of crushed police cars and fire engines, stacked on top of one another. A separate field has been created for the remains of 7 World Trade Center, which once housed regional offices of several federal agencies, including the Secret Service. In the dirt lay a pink-and-black chunk of its marbled facade.

But there is also randomness to the order. Over here, the engine from American Airlines Flight 11, the jetliner that crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower. Over there, the oversized concrete planters that were installed as a security measure after the trade center was bombed in 1993. And there, a fire hose, unraveled........

.......Photos:.......GRIM REMINDERS -- A crushed police car, part of an engine from American Airlines Flight 11, and girders twisted in the collapse. (Photographs by FRED R. CONRAD/The New York Times)(pg. B11).....

This "find" of a Flight 11 engine was never publicized widely; no mention by FEMA....

The Smithsonian had an exhibit that included recovered aircraft wreckage....no mention of an engine from WTC:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=45

Freaky things do happen, and plane crashes are no exceptions.
Claims that two passports or visas of hijackers of flight 93, and one from a WTC plane hijacker were recovered, post crash, just seems beyond "freaky" to me. The flight 93 "debris field" is the last place that I would expect that two hijackers' passports would be found.

The prosecutors emphasis on evidence exhibits from flight 93, and the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial penalty phase is also "odd", to me.

Please provide examples of my "late" edits of my past posts. The only things that I can think of are the pictures that I posted last week, on a post early in this thread. All edits are time/date stamped here at TFP. I did not edit that post, the problem is there is with the "free web space" provider....not with any edit I performed.....

Cynthetiq · 05-09-2006, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Dilbert, the "arrogance" I was referring to was this quote that you posted that actually, as I said, reinforces my opinion....

The quote was linked to a post on letsroll.org ....it ended with:

You certainly have no reason to defend against a criticism that your tone was arrogant.....it has never been, IMO.

I found this...it took a lot of searching. This should be about finding the actual facts....not about how accurate any of our opinions are. In that spirit, if the nytimes was correct, I am wrong about the landfill picture, and you, Dilbert, are right!

Near the bottom of this nytimes article, there is this:
(I subscribe to newsbank...and I read the whole article....)

This "find" of a Flight 11 engine was never publicized widely; no mention by FEMA....

The Smithsonian had an exhibit that included recovered aircraft wreckage....no mention of an engine from WTC:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=45

Freaky things do happen, and plane crashes are no exceptions.
Claims that two passports or visas of hijackers of flight 93, and one from a WTC plane hijacker were recovered, post crash, just seems beyond "freaky" to me. The flight 93 "debris field" is the last place that I would expect that two hijackers' passports would be found.

The prosecutors emphasis on evidence exhibits from flight 93, and the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial penalty phase is also "odd", to me.

Please provide examples of my "late" edits of my past posts. The only things that I can think of are the pictures that I posted last week, on a post early in this thread. All edits are time/date stamped here at TFP. I did not edit that post, the problem is there is with the "free web space" provider....not with any edit I performed.....

Why not? I saw a picture of the severed bound hands. That's freaky on so many levels. The hands weren't scorched, not burned, no abraisions from the view that I had, just severed and bound.

Papers are still being found in people's backyards in Brooklyn, bone remains were recently found on the top of one of the buildings off to the side.

Freaky? I guess.

It's just as simple to say, it's what happened.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-09-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

… and you, Dilbert, are right! ...

YAY!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Freaky things do happen, and plane crashes are no exceptions.
Claims that two passports or visas of hijackers of flight 93, and one from a WTC plane hijacker were recovered, post crash, just seems beyond "freaky" to me. The flight 93 "debris field" is the last place that I would expect that two hijackers' passports would be found.

There are a lot of weird things that happen in plane crashes, if you look at the pictured I posted, you will see there are 2 driver’s license, and a business card. When the plane hit the ground, the back would crash into the front creating pressure inside the cabin, as it ruptured this pressure would blow light objects out, other than that, if the passport was covered by something heavy and not likely to burn would preserve the paper. I think if you were able to see everything that was recovered, you would find most of the passports, and identifications, but they don’t make the news, however the terrorist passports do make the news.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The prosecutors emphasis on evidence exhibits from flight 93, and the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial penalty phase is also "odd", to me.

Please provide examples of my "late" edits of my past posts. The only things that I can think of are the pictures that I posted last week, on a post early in this thread. All edits are time/date stamped here at TFP. I did not edit that post, the problem is there is with the "free web space" provider....not with any edit I performed.....

I’m unfamiliar with with the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial, you have a good link?

As for changing post,

I quoted you as saying

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
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!

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.

When I quote some one, I try to never take sections out from a quote, if I don’t want part of it, I’ll break it into 2 quotes.

I looked back yesterday and your post look like it was changed to include

Quote:

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.

I don’t recall that ‘hint’ from when I initially quoted you. The log says ‘Last edited by host : 05-04-2006 at 11:27 AM.’

Now fixing spelling is fine, even making things more clear, like removing ‘it’, ‘them’, ‘they’ with the actual party’s name is helpful. I could have just missed that it was in the initial post, at this point it does not matter, you understand my side and agree with me.

red0blivia · 05-09-2006, 05:51 PM

to those slinging labels & claiming this discussion is not worthy of the political thread...

it is dismissive and, entirely, rude to throw around terms, which knowingly bear a negative connontation (regardless of the fact they shouldn't), like "conspiracy theorists" or the more degrading "insane", and tell people this belongs in the paranoia forum.
such retorts are comparable to schoolyard name-calling and demeaning, and they lend, absolutely, no value to the discussion.
if you have nothing intellingent or compelling to reply with, i would suggest that you just refrain from typing till you, actually, do have something credible to refute the claims.

i would also like to state:
conspiracy theory does not = paranoia.
conspiracies occur on a daily basis, and the american government has taken part in its fair share of them that were later exposed.
and lest we forget, everything is theory - untill proven factual.

people are offering/analyzing/discussing actual evidence, and whether or not you agree with the conclusion they come to, it is not anyone's place to label the other's thoughts/perceptions/conclusions as paranoid.

if you are, for whatever reason, not open to to reading other's posts (on this particular subject) objectively, with an open mind and willingness to weigh the facts, then there is no reason you should comment on it, at all.
read it for kicks, if you wish, and then move on.

Willravel · 05-09-2006, 05:59 PM

Thank you, red0bliva. Youy offer good advice.

Seaver · 05-09-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

it is dismissive and, entirely, rude to throw around terms, which knowingly bear a negative connontation (regardless of the fact they shouldn't), like "conspiracy theorists" or the more degrading "insane", and tell people this belongs in the paranoia forum.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we must be respectful of those who wish to call it a dog.

Willravel · 05-09-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we must be respectful of those who wish to call it a dog.

I disagree with yoiur viewpoint in this thread, but have I called you names or implied you were insane?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I guess you better shoot it down with a 12 gauge.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-09-2006, 09:27 PM

so willtravel are all of your unanswered questions answered?

Willravel · 05-09-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

so willtravel are all of your unanswered questions answered?

I'm still trying to contact some people who definately know a lot more than I do about things like structural engineering. I contacted a company that is building steel reinforced highrises in downtown San Jose, but tehy haven't gotten back to me yet. It's become clear to me that I am (I can't speak for anyone else) arguing beyond my understanding. I don't think, based on what I know, that the buildings could have possibly fallen due to the impact and fire damage from the planes that hit them. I also can't even begin to comprehend the collapse of WTC7. What I am doing now is more studying, and also monitoring (not as a moderator monitors, but as someone with interest follows a discussion).

Willravel: Will is my first name, Ravel is my favorite composer - just fyi, it doesn't really bother me.

Willravel · 05-09-2006, 09:56 PM

One thing that will always bother me is that WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane or any significant debris from WTC1 or 2. Just so you know, photographic evidence shows that WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, were hit with trmendous amounts of debris from the twin towers, espically when they colapsed. These buildings, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6, were each made from smaller guage steel frames than WTC 7. WTC7, meinwhile, was over a block fartheer away from WTC1 and 2 than 3, 4, 5, and 6. At 5:20 PM on 9/11, WTC7 fell taking only 6 and a half seconds to collapse. Note that even when a building is demoloshed, it rarely comes close to free fall speed. Before 9/11 no steel framed building had ever fallen due to fire.

WTC7 does not recieve damage from debris.
WTC7 only has small fires.
WTC7 collapses in 6.5 seconds.
No steel framed building has ever fallen from a fire, arguabally without the assistence of two very big planes hitting them.

This is a picture of WTC7 (in the yellow rectangle) from the South Tower.

Notice the two very small buildings between the South Tower and WTC7. Those are building 6 (on the let) and building 5 (on the right). WTC 5 and 6 survived...but WTC7 didn't.

It doesn't add up in my mind.

host · 05-10-2006, 03:07 AM

Watch WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein say on PBS in 2002 that he told NYFD to "pull" Building 7 down..... http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+ (Silverman's "Pull it" comment is at 3:30 minute mark on video)

Buy the video from PBS here: http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/

Our State Department offers Silverstein's 2005 "clarification" here....complete with
untruths documented from FEMA report and NIST spokesman's comments published by Popular Mechanics....and as reported in the NY Times. There were no firefighters in or near BUilding 7 after 11:30 am on 9/11. So...is Silverstein's clarification a lie? Why would the U.S. State Dept. website display Silverstein's lie on it's official website, if our government had nothing to hide?

Can you spot the "big lie" from the State Department web page, in the quote box below? Is the font big enough to match the scale of the lie? A bullshit story from our government, that a "kidney patient" who lived in a cave, planned an attack that involved 15 Saudi and 4 other middle eastern men who hijacked four airliners and flew 3 of them into buildings, flying at speeds over 500 mph at altitudes between 20 and 800 ft., executing fighter plane like maneuvers in spite of flying abilities described as poor by their flight instuctors. The four airliners were all hijacked nearly simultaneously and all eluded U.S. air defense countermeasures, inspite of the admission by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and COTJCOS Gen. Myers, that the four war games that coincidentally were conducted at the time of the hijackings, actually increased the ability of air defense assets to counter the attacking airliners!

You go...willravel !! As you can see, our government is posting this, because..???

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html
You Are In: USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation
9/11 Revealed?
New book repeats false conspiracy theories

....The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. <h3>Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.</h3>

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

NIST, FEMA, and NY Times state that there were no firefighters in Building 7, and "due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY..."

Quote:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y
9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March, 2005 issue.

.........NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM...

......Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says........

Quote:

[PDF] FEMA 403 -- Chapter 5File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Monitoring of the fire-alarm control panel for WTC 7 was ... that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. ...
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf -

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html
November 29, 2001

THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ

.....With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears........

....Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.........

Detailed report on building 7 collapse that dissects FEMA conclusions, complete with many photos and links to videos of the collapse:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

stevo · 05-10-2006, 06:30 AM

hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.

05-05-2006, 06:07 AM	#81 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So what are we debating now? All evidence points to 767's crashing into the WTC. No logical arguement can be made that controlled demolition brought down the towers. Its been shown that the fires in the towers as a result of the crash could have reached in excesss of 1100[deg]F and that the towers collapsed onto the damaged floors first and then pancaked down. SO are we just humoring will and host, or are we done and this thread can be moved to paranoia? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-05-2006, 06:34 AM	#82 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Here's where I think we are (and others may disagree, remembering that I'm not the last word on debate points): - The preponderance of evidence points to 767s crashing into the WTC. - At this point, it seems that the fires in the towers could have burned hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of the steel frame. In combination with physical damage, this may have been enough to bring the towers down. - Given the above point, an extremely persuasive argument would have to be made that the true cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was a controlled demolition. With respect to the previous three posters, I'd prefer not to move this thread into paranoia. Thus far, it has certainly been rooted in discussion of rational and proveable concepts. I'd like to keep it here for several reasons: 1) because someone may have more to add (and we should remain open to that possibility), 2) because we may wish to refer to it in the future and the current content is acceptable for this space, and 3) (related to 3) this was a fine discussion and I don't think it should be marginalized by assigning it to the realm of crazy speculation - willravel's effort deserves more respect than that. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-05-2006, 07:57 AM	#85 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I have a question for the 9/11 conspiracists(sp). How does Al Qaeda fit into this. If it were not them who acted, if OBL, or Zawihiri, or Atta, or any other Al Qaeda affiliate didn't act, who did then? Was it the government? Was it the Mossad trying to prompt US action against its Islamic/Arabic foes? What is the governments motivation? How do you explain the fault in logic brought about in Seaver's post in post #73? It would seem that OBL and Al Qaeda convieniently(sp) took the fall for the US government on this one; not to mention there is no way to corraberate their involvement by their other actions world wide(sarcasm). Going with my sarcasm and corraberating historical fact, OBL and Al Qaeda have no involvement in terrorism against the US, sans the Embassy bombings, Somalia, USS Cole, or action in Al Qaeda. Now this really doesn't have to degrade into the realm of conspiracy. I just want some clarafication on the matter. So Will, Host, or any other person inclined to hold believes of a similar nature, if you could, I would like you to sysnthesize a theory for me, again a theory doesn't how to fall into the realm of conspiracy. What was the motivation for the attacks? Who was the primary actor? Did the US work with Al Qaeda? Does Al Qaeda even exist? Does OBL exist? So many questions, brought about by all this "evidence". What's the deal? Edited out of respect for Will and Uber __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 05-05-2006 at 10:19 AM..

05-05-2006, 09:32 AM	#87 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I think posts 85-88 would be more at home in the thread in Tilted Paranoia. It's important to try to make a distinction. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-05-2006, 09:47 AM	#88 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't see how my post fits into Paranoia. In this thread there has been an abundance of information and "evidence" laid out. I'm simply seeking to find an answer, or rather have certain members here explain what the evidence means in form of a theory. All the evidence in the world is grand, but it seems ultimately useless if it doesn't seem to represent something larger. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-05-2006, 07:36 PM	#91 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This picture is what is holding me up. Look at the South Tower, both the location of the core and also the impact. Now look at the North Tower and it's impact. The South Tower was hit at an angle that sprayed a lot (I do not know the amount) of fuel out of the building in the explosion. The North Tower was hit directly, which meant that it is likely to have had much more fuel in the building, and less being sprayed out of the building. The plane that hit the North Tower went directly into the core, which woudl suggest that it should have done a lot more damage. The plane that hit the South Tower did not hit the core head on, and presumabally did a lot less damage. To review: North Tower: More damage, more fuel (more fire) South Tower: Less damage, less fuel (less fire) This is confusing considering the South Tower collapsed in 47 minutes and the North Tower collapsed in 104 minutes. If you'd like to focus on that, I'd appreciate it.

05-05-2006, 07:50 PM	#92 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Will, your confusion assumes that the towers were identical, had identical offices within, and identical populations wearing identical clothes. And everybody had an identical number of post it notes. 1 WTC was actually a bigger building, that could have something to do with the fact it took longer to collapse. Some of the floors were built to support transmission facilities for the majority of NYC's radio and TV stations. That could have something to do with it. It also had a re-inforced roof to sustain a transmission tower. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-05-2006, 07:54 PM	#93 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Will, call me a skeptic but I can't see this going anywhere. You need high-rise structural engineers, jet aircraft engineers, crash investigators, etc. Nobody I've seen here so far has the required expertise or the data to provide more than educated conjecture. We could come up with numerous explanations that are equally plausible given our outside perspective plus the varying quality of building materials and general accident randomness. This seems like a severe case of armchairquarterbackitis. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

05-05-2006, 10:46 PM	#96 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	You shouldn't need a huge groundswell. Who did the official investigation? DHS wasn't around yet. FBI? NTSB? Independent contractors in their employ? The information should be available via FOIA, no? Get a few industry experts to ID the pictured engine blind - maybe even start with airline mechanics - and compare their guesses to the official report. I know a couple mechanics but their bigbody experience is dated. If even a few guys who work on the things daily match your suspicion you'll have something to go on. Or not. Somehow I doubt I'm the first to flail in this direction. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

05-05-2006, 10:49 PM	#97 (permalink)
host Banned	someone in a previous said that the jet engine core was enveloped in fire. How could that be possible if it impacted a building at over 400 mph...crashed out the side of the building and still had momentum to come to rest six blocks away and 80 stories lower? Suppose a car bomb destroyed my house and the bomb car. The police inspect the debris and then tell me that they have the bomber in custody and he cannot account for his missing V6 powered Ford Taurus. I hire workers to clear the debris off my house lot. I notify the police that a mangled car engine block and a wheel were found in the debris. Police come back...inspect the engine block....confirm that it is from a v6 Taurus and arrest the suspect with the missing Taurus. But...I am suspicious...the engine block sure looks like a 4 cylinder block. I pay a tech from the local Ford garage 20 bucks to inspect the wrecked engine. He thinks its a 4 Cyl for a Toyota Corolla. I tell the police the news. Their response is that the guy they arrested must have bombed my house....his car is missing. The cops tell me that I should not have sought an outside opinion about the actual size and model of the bombed engine block....unless I was prepared to tell them who actually bombed my house....why.. and with which model car. Otherwise...they know they got the guy who did it. He was trained as an army combat engineer...had a grudge against my son....and....his car was missing......

05-06-2006, 09:33 AM	#99 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I may be wrong, but I doubt the NTSB did much investigation. They determine probable causes of plane crashes, which in this case wasn't really in doubt. And now that the evidence is gone, they couldn't do much except work their magic with the flight recorders. My Dad works there in a capacity that would make him aware of their involvement. I'll ask him about it tonight. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-06-2006, 10:04 PM	#101 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	willravel, were you satisfied by my answer why the south tower fell first? (post 96) __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-07-2006, 05:36 AM	#104 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, if the fuel is burned in identical places in the cars, the fire should burn equal fast in both. However, if the 4 gallons is in the closed trunk and the 1 gallon is in the cabin, the car with the smaller amount will burn faster since it is a better environment with more non-gasoline fuel available. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-07-2006, 10:11 AM	#105 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	Ok, first to willravel, this is his thread after all: If I spill a gallon of gas, and a cup of gas in 2 identical houses (roughly equal in size to the amount that fueled the fires, relative to there size) it is true that the gallon will get the house burning faster, but each will reach raging inferno relatively quickly. In the towers, the fires were burning in full force after a short time, but the south tower collapsed first, because it had more weight above the points of impact, causing more force to be applied to the weakening girders and support. By the time the first towers collapse, they were both fully engulfed in flames, but due to the extra force applied from above the south tower fell first. As for the amount of structural damage, actually the south tower got it worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Locations.jpg The main fuselage hit the corner of the support of the building, not the center, the corners provide much more support then the sides do. Also check out this link, it’s a good explanation of the collapse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center To host: You are right you never said it was a CFM56-5b. you did post about the CFM56-3 model, and the 2 models are virtually identical in design. Here is a picture of the CFM56-3, and please note the small piping, much smaller than the picture you think is of a CFM56-3 http://www.albadawi.be/GRAPHIC/cfm56-3.jpg As for it being a CF6, I was not as clear as I should have been, the engine in this photo http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg is a CF6, but it is a different engine then the one on Murray and Church St. The part found on Murray http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...cengines2.html is clearly different from the other photo of a CF6. Here are the best 4 pictures of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D I could find: http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/image...taway_high.jpg http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_3_high.jpg http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_2_high.jpg The photo of the engine on Murray Street is to badly damage to do a visual inspection and identify it; it does show similarities with the JT9D-7R4D. But the part is to mangled up; the only visible parts are mangled metal and some tubing, which all jet engines have in abundance. The photo is beyond recognition visually, especially with people with out any training like us. It’s like taking a wrecked car, putting it in a car crusher, burning it, taking a picture of it, and asking some one who does not know about cars, what year it was made in based off of the picture alone. An expert with hands on access to the car could do it, but no one else. Your problem is you are looking at 2 different engines and thinking they are the same. The picture on Murray Street and the picture you keep showing are different. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 05-07-2006 at 03:35 PM.. Reason: clarity

05-08-2006, 09:18 AM	#107 (permalink)
host Banned	Dilbert, the links that you submitted in the post before your last one, support my contention that the wrecked jet engine core photos are of GE/CFAN design.....your sources say CF6, my photo comparison below shows similarities between the CFM56-3 photo on the wiki site page. The comments that you quoted, about the CF6 were arrogant in their certainty. This does not bode well for the official line (FEMA) that the engine is from P&W powered flight 175! In your last post, you also throw in the possibility that the wreckage is from a P&W JT9D-7 design. I see nothing that indicates a P&W source, but I do see simliarites in the upper right of each photo, that support a CFM56-3 source. The weakest evidence is that this is P&W jet engine wreckage, but the official line is that it has to be.... <img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/streetsm.JPG"> <img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wikism.JPG"> Here's a closeup of a shot from the Naudet brothers 8/11 docu film. It's teken from the other side of the Murray St. engine, (same engine as in top photo) <center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc2eng.jpg"><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/filmst.JPG"></center> The last set of photos indicate that the larger closeup in the first photo, is from the opposite side of the engine, the side that was "shortened" by the impact of the initial crash into a WTC tower...or whatever this engine core previously hit. Here's a cropped close up of your linked photo: http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg There is a chance that we do not have a similar angle, but I see no similarity of the wreckage photos to the engine that Flight 175 was supposed to have, this P&W JT9D-7..... <img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/PWsm.JPG"> Last edited by host; 05-08-2006 at 09:50 AM..

05-09-2006, 05:51 PM	#112 (permalink)
red0blivia Upright Location: tartarus, oregon	to those slinging labels & claiming this discussion is not worthy of the political thread... it is dismissive and, entirely, rude to throw around terms, which knowingly bear a negative connontation (regardless of the fact they shouldn't), like "conspiracy theorists" or the more degrading "insane", and tell people this belongs in the paranoia forum. such retorts are comparable to schoolyard name-calling and demeaning, and they lend, absolutely, no value to the discussion. if you have nothing intellingent or compelling to reply with, i would suggest that you just refrain from typing till you, actually, do have something credible to refute the claims. i would also like to state: conspiracy theory does not = paranoia. conspiracies occur on a daily basis, and the american government has taken part in its fair share of them that were later exposed. and lest we forget, everything is theory - untill proven factual. people are offering/analyzing/discussing actual evidence, and whether or not you agree with the conclusion they come to, it is not anyone's place to label the other's thoughts/perceptions/conclusions as paranoid. if you are, for whatever reason, not open to to reading other's posts (on this particular subject) objectively, with an open mind and willingness to weigh the facts, then there is no reason you should comment on it, at all. read it for kicks, if you wish, and then move on.

05-09-2006, 05:59 PM	#113 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Thank you, red0bliva. Youy offer good advice.

05-09-2006, 09:27 PM	#116 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	so willtravel are all of your unanswered questions answered? __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-09-2006, 09:56 PM	#118 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	One thing that will always bother me is that WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane or any significant debris from WTC1 or 2. Just so you know, photographic evidence shows that WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, were hit with trmendous amounts of debris from the twin towers, espically when they colapsed. These buildings, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6, were each made from smaller guage steel frames than WTC 7. WTC7, meinwhile, was over a block fartheer away from WTC1 and 2 than 3, 4, 5, and 6. At 5:20 PM on 9/11, WTC7 fell taking only 6 and a half seconds to collapse. Note that even when a building is demoloshed, it rarely comes close to free fall speed. Before 9/11 no steel framed building had ever fallen due to fire. WTC7 does not recieve damage from debris. WTC7 only has small fires. WTC7 collapses in 6.5 seconds. No steel framed building has ever fallen from a fire, arguabally without the assistence of two very big planes hitting them. This is a picture of WTC7 (in the yellow rectangle) from the South Tower. Notice the two very small buildings between the South Tower and WTC7. Those are building 6 (on the let) and building 5 (on the right). WTC 5 and 6 survived...but WTC7 didn't. It doesn't add up in my mind.

05-10-2006, 06:30 AM	#120 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser