HEY, HARRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TITANIUM ENGINES?

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 19:41:20 GMT -5 Walter 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.

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

    Huh?   

    Well, then, I'll re-post that part of Bollyn's article for you, Walter.  Hopefully, you'll see the info on your second attempt.  (However, I won't hold my breath.)   Pay attention to his description of his phone calls to the USAF, American Airlines, Rolls Royce, et.al.



Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. I asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the roar would be deafening.

I also contacted the U.S. Air Force, American Airlines, Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, and others to ask for help identifying the part, but no one is willing to discuss the photographs. In several cases the spokesmen were ready to provide a statement before even seeing the photos.

John W. Brown from Rolls Royce said, “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE3007H made here in Indy.”

Capt. Roger Burdette (USAF) from Arnold AFB, Tenn., said: “After considering your request, I’ve decided that it’s not in our best interest here at Arnold to speculate about this unidentified part. My main concern is that if, as you suggested, two Global Hawks were missing, the Air Force would officially investigate the disappearances.”

Col. Alvina Mitchell, Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon, said, “There are many issues with photos,” suggesting they may not be authentic. For “legal reasons” she could not respond to any questions. Mitchell said questions regarding Global Hawk should be sent to Sue Baker at the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, where the Global Hawk program is headquartered. Baker, however, was unable to answer any questions regarding the photos.

I then turned to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington. FAS is known to have access to many scientists and data concerning U.S. military hardware. Josh Kellar at FAS, however, said the organization did not have any personnel who could identify the basic parts of a jet engine like the ones in the photo. In a written response, Kellar rejected the theory that anything other than a hijacked passenger jet hit the Pentagon: “I think the secrecy surrounding the 9-11 investigation and the enormous gravity of the attack itself have spawned a number of conspiracy theories, but there is a massive body of evidence that leaves no doubt as to what the actual cause of the devastation at the World Trade Center and Pentagon was: they were hit by hijacked passenger jets.”

But Josh at the FAS could not say what part of a 757 engine is seen in the photograph from the Pentagon.

Read more: aolcfboutcasts.proboards.com/thread/28559/hey-harry-happened-titanium-engines?page=2#ixzz4dQqvwWhB

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[Walter]

Looks to me as though your own post screws up your assertion.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 22:36:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Looks to me as though your own post screws up your assertion.

Walter,

    Let me ask you, since you are an architect.

    Do you really believe that an aluminum 757 fuselage could have penetrated through three heavy concrete and steel reinforced walls/rings at the Pentagon on 9/11?

[lz2112]

Apr 6, 2017 10:46:16 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 5, 2017 22:36:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Looks to me as though your own post screws up your assertion.

Do you really believe that an aluminum 757 fuselage could have penetrated through three heavy concrete and steel reinforced walls/rings at the Pentagon on 9/11?

At over 500mph? Yes.

[Deleted]

LZ,

     Have you ever seen demos of what happens when an aluminum aircraft hits a concrete wall?  It's not pretty.

     Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission claimed that the Boeing 757 was completely vaporized on impact with the Pentagon-- hence, no airplane, chairs, luggage, passengers, etc.   If it completely vaporized on impact, how did it manage to penetrate three concrete and steel-reinforced buildings?

     IMO, this 757/Pentagon story is the most ridiculous narrative since Arlen Specter's "single-bullet" theory-- concocted for the Warren Commission.

     Also, you and Walter have still not explained the Pentagon videos, which show (from multiple angles) what looks like some sort of missile or drone being launched into the wall of the Pentagon on 9/11.

[oujour76]

Apr 6, 2017 12:15:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

LZ,

     Have you ever seen demos of what happens when an aluminum aircraft hits a concrete wall?  It's not pretty.

     Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission claimed that the Boeing 757 was completely vaporized on impact with the Pentagon-- hence, no airplane, chairs, luggage, passengers, etc.   If it completely vaporized on impact, how did it manage to penetrate three concrete and steel-reinforced buildings?

     IMO, this 757/Pentagon story is the most ridiculous narrative since Arlen Specter's "single-bullet" theory-- concocted for the Warren Commission.

     Also, you and Walter have still not explained the Pentagon videos, which show (from multiple angles) what looks like some sort of missile or drone being launched into the wall of the Pentagon on 9/11.

Here's a test of what happens to an F-4 hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph. It "atomized and disappeared into dust" according to the narrator. And, do keep in mind, this plane wasn't full of fuel.

[oujour76]

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2017 13:44:43 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 6, 2017 12:15:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

LZ,

     Have you ever seen demos of what happens when an aluminum aircraft hits a concrete wall?  It's not pretty.

     Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission claimed that the Boeing 757 was completely vaporized on impact with the Pentagon-- hence, no airplane, chairs, luggage, passengers, etc.   If it completely vaporized on impact, how did it manage to penetrate three concrete and steel-reinforced buildings?

     IMO, this 757/Pentagon story is the most ridiculous narrative since Arlen Specter's "single-bullet" theory-- concocted for the Warren Commission.

     Also, you and Walter have still not explained the Pentagon videos, which show (from multiple angles) what looks like some sort of missile or drone being launched into the wall of the Pentagon on 9/11.

Here's a test of what happens to an F-4 hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph. It "atomized and disappeared into dust" according to the narrator. And, do keep in mind, this plane wasn't full of fuel.



Yes, Harry, I'm quite familiar with that video.

Among other things, it proves that it wasn't an aluminum Boeing 757 fuselage that punched a hole through three solid concrete and steel-reinforced buildings/rings at the Pentagon on 9/11.

[oujour76]

Apr 6, 2017 19:37:07 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 6, 2017 13:44:43 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Here's a test of what happens to an F-4 hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph. It "atomized and disappeared into dust" according to the narrator. And, do keep in mind, this plane wasn't full of fuel.



Yes, Harry, I'm quite familiar with that video.

Among other things, it proves that it wasn't an aluminum Boeing 757 fuselage that punched a hole through three solid concrete and steel-reinforced buildings/rings at the Pentagon on 9/11.

How does it prove a cruise missile went through three walls?

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2017 20:15:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 6, 2017 19:37:07 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

How does it prove a cruise missile went through three walls?

I don't know what Rumsfeld and Cheney launched into the Pentagon on 9/11, but it sure as hell wasn't a Boeing 757.

It must have been some sort of bunker busting missile.

There is a photo somewhere of men in black carrying something that looks like a missile out of the Pentagon wreckage on 9/11 that is draped in a blue tarp.

[oujour76]

Apr 6, 2017 21:14:45 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 6, 2017 20:15:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

How does it prove a cruise missile went through three walls?

I don't know what Rumsfeld and Cheney launched into the Pentagon on 9/11, but it sure as hell wasn't a Boeing 757.

It must have been some sort of bunker busting missile.

There is a photo somewhere of men in black carrying something that looks like a missile out of the Pentagon wreckage on 9/11 that is draped in a blue tarp.

Did the U.S. even have bunker busting missiles in 2001? Besides, from the video, it's clear the explosion was on impact. So, how did this "missile" then go through two more walls? Explain.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2017 21:33:57 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 6, 2017 21:14:45 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

I don't know what Rumsfeld and Cheney launched into the Pentagon on 9/11, but it sure as hell wasn't a Boeing 757.

It must have been some sort of bunker busting missile.

There is a photo somewhere of men in black carrying something that looks like a missile out of the Pentagon wreckage on 9/11 that is draped in a blue tarp.

Did the U.S. even have bunker busting missiles in 2001? Besides, from the video, it's clear the explosion was on impact. So, how did this "missile" then go through two more walls? Explain.

Yes.  Didn't GHWB deploy bunker buster missiles of some kind during the Persian Gulf War?

I'm hardly an expert on modern military technology, but take a look at these videos of the Pentagon on 9/11.

Whatever hit the Pentagon looks like some sort of white missile (or small white jet?)

[AlaCowboy]

Ernest, you can easily convert these non-believers over to your side. Post verifiable interviews with each of the passengers on the four 9/11 airplanes with them describing where they have been hiding for 16 years.