HEY, HARRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TITANIUM ENGINES?

[daleko]

Apr 4, 2017 22:13:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:08:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Ya OK. Whatever you want to say. <shrug> BTW I'm not a Dale. Obviously you don't know what daleko means.

Harry's dead wrong, as usual. Not sure why he imagines that he knows better than I what my interests are.

As for "Daleko," what does it mean?

Depends on the use and there are many uses. Far & wide, a great distance, as in the internet.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 22:16:02 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 4, 2017 19:38:04 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

There's a great deal of disinformation out there.

No shit and you read most of it, then post that garbage here. Which one of the triplets posted this rely? NSA thinks there are three of you.

Garbage?  Please point it out for me.

Are you referring to Christopher Bollyn's analysis of Boeing 757 engines, or the three videos showing a missile (or drone) hitting the Pentagon?

I can't very well respond to a rebuttal as vague as your last attempt.

[daleko]

Apr 4, 2017 22:21:18 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:16:02 GMT -5 daleko said:

No shit and you read most of it, then post that garbage here. Which one of the triplets posted this rely? NSA thinks there are three of you.

Garbage?  Please point it out for me.

Are you referring to Christopher Bollyn's analysis of Boeing 757 engines, or the three videos showing a missile (or drone) hitting the Pentagon?

I can't very well respond to a rebuttal as vague as your last attempt.

We'll start w the hole in the inner ring wall that you represented as an outer wall with no wing marks defining it as a missile attack. And then you doubled down by saying 45 minutes later the whole wall collapsed over it. Problem is I knew the difference having seen both up close. It was an easy call for me but I asked you leading Qs giving you a path of egress. Nope you doubled down. Easy pics to find, which you ignored. Showed you to be a tool. You should have just said "I got suckered" and moved on. But you didn't. You really ought to fact check your conspiracy sites, if your intent is to seek the truth.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 22:31:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:21:18 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Garbage?  Please point it out for me.

Are you referring to Christopher Bollyn's analysis of Boeing 757 engines, or the three videos showing a missile (or drone) hitting the Pentagon?

I can't very well respond to a rebuttal as vague as your last attempt.

We'll start w the hole in the inner ring wall that you represented as an outer wall with no wing marks defining it as a missile attack. And then you doubled down by saying 45 minutes later the whole wall collapsed over it. Problem is I knew the difference having seen both up close. It was an easy call for me but I asked you leading Qs giving you a path of egress. Nope you doubled down. Easy pics to find, which you ignored. Showed you to be a tool. You should have just said "I got suckered" and moved on. But you didn't. You really ought to fact check your conspiracy sites, if your intent is to seek the truth.

The rotor shown in the photo IS part of a 757 engine.   That is simply the central hub disc, with the turbine blades detached.  There are different sized rotors and blades in the engine, their size dependent on which part of the engine they came from.   Traitor Willie knows nothing about jet engines, so he swallows any bullshit that claims "conspiracy."

[daleko]

Apr 4, 2017 22:53:01 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:31:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

We'll start w the hole in the inner ring wall that you represented as an outer wall with no wing marks defining it as a missile attack. And then you doubled down by saying 45 minutes later the whole wall collapsed over it. Problem is I knew the difference having seen both up close. It was an easy call for me but I asked you leading Qs giving you a path of egress. Nope you doubled down. Easy pics to find, which you ignored. Showed you to be a tool. You should have just said "I got suckered" and moved on. But you didn't. You really ought to fact check your conspiracy sites, if your intent is to seek the truth.

The rotor shown in the photo IS part of a 757 engine.   That is simply the central hub disc, with the turbine blades detached.  There are different sized rotors and blades in the engine, their size dependent on which part of the engine they came from.   Traitor Willie knows nothing about jet engines, so he swallows any bullshit that claims "conspiracy."

Mechanical Engineering and it's sub focus Aero Engineering. Neither of which Willie knows anything about. His bonehead play of the day was the hole in the wall. He's a tool.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 22:57:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:53:01 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

The rotor shown in the photo IS part of a 757 engine.   That is simply the central hub disc, with the turbine blades detached.  There are different sized rotors and blades in the engine, their size dependent on which part of the engine they came from.   Traitor Willie knows nothing about jet engines, so he swallows any bullshit that claims "conspiracy."

Mechanical Engineering and it's sub focus Aero Engineering. Neither of which Willie knows anything about. His bonehead play of the day was the hole in the wall. He's a tool.

Here's a basic lesson for Traitor Willie and the other conspiracy IDIOTS on the different sizes of rotor discs in a turbofan engine.

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Animation/turbtyp/etfm.html

[lz2112]

Apr 4, 2017 16:30:38 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 4, 2017 13:58:50 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Geez... where did everybody go?  Walter?  LZ?  Daleko?  Harry?  Mutt? Fred?  Lee?
I thought this was a discussion forum...

Maybe it's you and your disingenuous posting style.  

Gee, ya think? You may be on to something.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 0:00:01 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Apr 4, 2017 16:30:38 GMT -5 daleko said:

Maybe it's you and your disingenuous posting style.  

Gee, ya think? You may be on to something.

Actually, he's dead wrong.  Get a clue, LZ.

Read my above rebuttal to the Cheese's truly disingenuous comment above.

[lz2112]

Apr 4, 2017 22:57:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:53:01 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

The rotor shown in the photo IS part of a 757 engine.   That is simply the central hub disc, with the turbine blades detached.  There are different sized rotors and blades in the engine, their size dependent on which part of the engine they came from.   Traitor Willie knows nothing about jet engines, so he swallows any bullshit that claims "conspiracy."

Mechanical Engineering and it's sub focus Aero Engineering. Neither of which Willie knows anything about. His bonehead play of the day was the hole in the wall. He's a tool.

And the link I provided explained it in excruciating detail, but as usual, he ignored it and continued to babble.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 23:25:07 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:57:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Mechanical Engineering and it's sub focus Aero Engineering. Neither of which Willie knows anything about. His bonehead play of the day was the hole in the wall. He's a tool.

Here's a basic lesson for Traitor Willie and the other conspiracy IDIOTS on the different sizes of rotor discs in a turbofan engine.

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Animation/turbtyp/etfm.html

Mutt,

   Go back and read Christopher Bollyn's article (above) on the subject of the engine part photographed on 9/11.

(This is why guys like you and LZ need to study the data a references I post in these debates.)

   The Rolls Royce official said that the part was definitely NOT from a Boeing 757.

   In fact, Bollyn went to considerable lengths to find out what engine the part came from.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 0:04:27 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Apr 4, 2017 22:57:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Mechanical Engineering and it's sub focus Aero Engineering. Neither of which Willie knows anything about. His bonehead play of the day was the hole in the wall. He's a tool.

And the link I provided explained it in excruciating detail, but as usual, he ignored it and continued to babble.

Wrong again, LZ.  I read your link after work yesterday.

The problem is that you failed to read both reference links that I posted which refute your argument about the turbine seen in the Pentagon photo.

You're 0 for 2 in your two posts tonight.

In other words, you flunked.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 0:10:53 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 4, 2017 23:25:07 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Here's a basic lesson for Traitor Willie and the other conspiracy IDIOTS on the different sizes of rotor discs in a turbofan engine.

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Animation/turbtyp/etfm.html

Mutt,

   Go back and read Christopher Bollyn's article (above) on the subject of the engine part photographed on 9/11.

(This is why guys like you and LZ need to study the data a references I post in these debates.)

   The Rolls Royce official said that the part was definitely NOT from a Boeing 757.

   In fact, Bollyn went to considerable lengths to find out what engine the part came from.

I HAD to read this bullshit.

Hey genius ............ 757's are also powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.  

[Walter]

Apr 5, 2017 13:10:22 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Apr 5, 2017 0:10:53 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Mutt,

   Go back and read Christopher Bollyn's article (above) on the subject of the engine part photographed on 9/11.

(This is why guys like you and LZ need to study the data a references I post in these debates.)

   The Rolls Royce official said that the part was definitely NOT from a Boeing 757.

   In fact, Bollyn went to considerable lengths to find out what engine the part came from.

I HAD to read this bullshit.

Hey genius ............ 757's are also powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.  

Aw , dammit....more perfectly good conspiracy half-truth data shot to hell.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 17:37:54 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 5, 2017 13:10:22 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

I HAD to read this bullshit.

Hey genius ............ 757's are also powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.  

Aw , dammit....more perfectly good conspiracy half-truth data shot to hell.

Huh? 

[Walter]

Apr 5, 2017 0:10:53 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 4, 2017 23:25:07 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Here's a basic lesson for Traitor Willie and the other conspiracy IDIOTS on the different sizes of rotor discs in a turbofan engine.

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Animation/turbtyp/etfm.html

Mutt,

   Go back and read Christopher Bollyn's article (above) on the subject of the engine part photographed on 9/11.

(This is why guys like you and LZ need to study the data a references I post in these debates.)

   The Rolls Royce official said that the part was definitely NOT from a Boeing 757.

   In fact, Bollyn went to considerable lengths to find out what engine the part came from.

"...considerable lengths..." ??
What considerable lengths did he go to? Certainly nothing in the article you posted.