Trump referred to as 'truther' after linking Bush and 911

a reply to: BlackOp007

Because the part and diameter of the engine were incorrect. The part was a previous generation part which not only would have been banned from FAA usage and no airline would have used it do to fuel efficiency standards, it was from the wrong engine and that modification was not a future modification. It was an incompatible part used on a specific engine type.

If you are referring to the wreckage in the following photo, then I have to say that you were misled because what you are looking at is the engine core, which is much smaller than the fan stage of the engine. Apparently, John Lear would have been aware of that fact as well and instead, he decided to dupe 9/11 conspiracy theorist with disinformation. Those of us who have been involved with jet engines would have known that John Lear was pushing disinformation. Take the following photo to any American Airlines maintenance facility so they can confirm what I have just told you.

Photo: Engine Wreckage

The specifics of the engine and part in question are related to the Murray street engine and John Lear already brought this up so I did not waste time rehashing the fbi.gov link and othet official government agencies which have the actual photo and it clearly shows what it was which you can cross check yourself. Do your own research and at is why I am trying not to be specific, not because I am lying, I want people to see for themselves.

To sum it up, that piece of wreckage is the engine core, not the fan stage. The fan stage of the engine has a much larger diameter, which is another example of how 9/11 conspiracy theorist have been misled over the years.

I kmow exactly what it was and it was not disinformation. The core sizes across the board are measurable. The fan component required for this core was larger than the fan component required for a 757 or 767 engine.

You need to take the whole engine into account. Cores match specific fan components. They work together. I an not an engineer in engine design but I know enough to definitely say this engine core which indeed it was, it was the internal part of the engine did not match the type it should have been.

See the round ring with the little pipes attached to it. That is not from a 757 or 767 engine and the fan blade that would require is a 747 sized blade. The part number has already been identified. American Airlines nor United Airlines would have had that part. This piece btw was an alleged United Airlines engine not American Airlines. Even by the looks of the part it wasn't even in use due to inefficiency. As humans learn they created different engine designes and get better learning more as they create the next generation engines and modifications. Each nation competes and you have multinational engine firms and the like now.

Just like car engines which evolve and now newest cars see a lot of improvements, some good and a few not so good.

You can indeed open up United jet engines and get a spare with a core on a jet similar to used allegedly on 9/11/2001. It would not match this part. Yet idiots who have no clue still believe the official story.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: BlackOp007

Because the part and diameter of the engine were incorrect. The part was a previous generation part which not only would have been banned from FAA usage and no airline would have used it do to fuel efficiency standards, it was from the wrong engine and that modification was not a future modification. It was an incompatible part used on a specific engine type.

If you are referring to the wreckage in the following photo, then I have to say that you were misled because what you are looking at is the engine core, which is much smaller than the fan stage of the engine. Apparently, John Lear would have been aware of that fact as well and instead, he decided to dupe 9/11 conspiracy theorist with disinformation. Those of us who have been involved with jet engines would have known that John Lear was pushing disinformation. Take the following photo to any American Airlines maintenance facility so they can confirm what I have just told you.

Photo: Engine Wreckage

The specifics of the engine and part in question are related to the Murray street engine and John Lear already brought this up so I did not waste time rehashing the fbi.gov link and othet official government agencies which have the actual photo and it clearly shows what it was which you can cross check yourself. Do your own research and at is why I am trying not to be specific, not because I am lying, I want people to see for themselves.

To sum it up, that part is the engine core, not the fan stage, which has a much larger diameter.

the parts used is meaningless, they could have easily modded anything to look official.

a reply to: BlackOp007

I kmow exactly what it was and it was not disinformation. The core sizes across the board are measurable. The fan component required for this core was larger than the fan component required for a 757 or 767 engine.

That is false and is the disinformation that I have warned 9/11 conspiracy theorist about. For an example, using the following pictures, which engine powers the B-747 and which engine powers the B-767?


Engine #1

Engine #2

You can indeed open up United jet engines and get a spare with a core on a jet similar to used allegedly on 9/11/2001. It would not match this part. Yet idiots who have no clue still believe the official story.

Apparently, 9/11 conspiracy theorist have been duped. For an example, you can switch cores, compressor stages, turbine stages all day and I can still identify the original engine and the aircraft they were last attached from the engines alone. In other words, I can identify the aircraft that crashed into WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon, and near Shanksville from their engines. In fact, I can identify each of those aircraft from their APUs alone.

To sum it up, there is no way that you can trick an experience mechanic or investigator by switching engine equipment. In doing so, leaves behind a long paper trail that can be easily traced.

a reply to: HorusChrist

the parts used is meaningless, they could have easily modded anything to look official.

Certain parts are very important because from such parts, I can identify the person who replaced that part and the date that part was installed on which engine, and the date and location from where part was ordered and the name of the manufacturer and the date that part was shipped and time and date that part was received and by whom.

In other words, generating traceable paper trails across the country and around the world.

originally posted by: HorusChrist
the parts used is meaningless, they could have easily modded anything to look official.

Its proof that the jet engine and noise profile did not match up.

People keep twisting information and using false links which are not the official sources of the utilized parts.

The responses of the kiddies on here are not important and as John Lear himself has said, this place exists for purposes of disinformation which I am personally seeing myself. He is on the record saying this.

The part shown in question was not in use by any airlines at the time and would not have fit on the stock engine. That whole core can be broken down to show even more different parts. But it is the easiest way to show it was not legitimate.

Airlines cant just shove a part of a 747 into a 757 or 767 core. It would not fit or even work.

Engines go under strict acoustic and fuel efficiency testing. The best firms including Rolls Royce who has engines I really love, which Delta is using now on some jets and has proactive realtime monitoring of their jet engines and superb design teams.

I am not a conspiracy theorist or a nut. I know people who died and the real truth needs to be told.

I have been working with secondary sources of information but only when I can personally identify the evidence myself.

Just like human anatomy, the schematics of this engine part can be broken down to each component but not only that, each component and part has unique characteristics which affect the engine in use which can be identified in real world usage.

In automotive you had cars with a miller cycle engine for instance and there is no way you would confuse those engines with another type. The properties and characteristics are different which can be measured not only with the specific required parts but of various characteristics in terms of performance and what the engine was doing.

I am using extraneous information not specifically related to the aircraft engine part in that comment but it is the same analogy of the disinformation you are spreading.

I am 100% certain this was not the true airplane engine in use and I will swear under oath if ever asked. John Lear already signed his legal affidavit who has more experience than me and others have joined him.

Look I would love to be saying this incident never even happened or it really was airplanes into the building but the death toll and effects would have been different and our own government displayed evidence if you even look at it, was false evidence that was not even involved.

i am done with everything I wil say on the engine matter.

But we move onto vetting real Presidential candidates and if Trump administration will allow more access to information on this matter.

According to new polls, Trump is very high in the GOP primary lead.

a reply to: BlackOp007

ts proof that the jet engine and noise profile did not match up.

That won't work because such engines are used among other types of aircraft as well. One of the engines I've posted is used by 10 different aircraft.

Airlines cant just shove a part of a 747 into a 757 or 767 core. It would not fit or even work.

You don't seem to understand that some engines are used by multiple aircraft. For an example, the RB211-535E4B is used to power the B-757-200 and the Russian-built Tu-204. The RB211-524H is used to power the B-747-400 and the B-767-300. In fact, you have B-767's using engines built by Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls-Royce, so using sound signatures by ear to identify a certain aircraft doesn't work if the identification is to be of a positive nature.

I am 100% certain this was not the true airplane engine in use and I will swear under oath if ever asked.

Would you do so in this case if asked to swear under oath that these photos do not depict engine wreckage from a B-757?

Photo 1: B-757 Engine Wreckage

Photo 2: B-757 Engine Wreckage

Photo 3: B-757 Engine Wreckage

John Lear already signed his legal affidavit who has more experience than me and others have joined him.

I am a pilot of 46 years and I am willing to go head-to-head with John Lear and debunk the false claims of John Lear with evidence. I am not only an experienced pilot, but I also have many years experience on airframes and fabricating parts for jet engines and modifying large and small aircraft and helicopters as well as flying as a dedicated crew chief aboard the Air Force's C-5 transports. In fact, my aircraft was used to fly recovery gear from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan in support of Korean Airlines FLT 007, which was shot down by the Soviet Union.

To let you know, John Lear is deliberately spreading false and misleading information.

a reply to: skyeagle409

To let you know, John Lear is deliberately spreading false and misleading information.

So why do you think he is doing that? He is the most accomplished pilot of all or at least he was so why rune his reputation..

a reply to: wildb

He is the most accomplished pilot of all

According to whom? Himself?

why rune his reputation..

His reputation among his admirers is just fine. Just like Greer's is.
I guess you think the Moon is a soul collector.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

He holds more certificates than anyone, he has earned everything the FAA has to offer, I was just asking for Skys opinion .

I don't know much about him nor do I have an opinion about him..

a reply to: wildb

He holds more certificates than anyone

According to whom?

I don't know much about him nor do I have an opinion about him..

Except that you are attempting to use him as an authority. That would indicate that you do have an opinion about him, and his opinions.

Except that you are attempting to use him as an authority. That would indicate that you do have an opinion about him, and his opinions.

a reply to: Phage

For what, I asked sky why would he push disinfo, thats all, how do you get me using him as an authority out of that, I could care less about him..

a reply to: Phage

According to whom?

The FAA ..

a reply to:

Ok I looked at your link, I now have an opinion, he's a nut, wonder how he got that way, kinda like Gordon cooper..

a reply to: wildb
Here is what you said.

He is the most accomplished pilot of all or at least he was so why rune his reputation..

You seem to think he has a reputation to worry about. I said that his reputation is just fine among his fans.

As to why he would spread false information. How about this; to thrill his fans. It's not unheard of.

a reply to: wildb

o why do you think he is doing that? He is the most accomplished pilot of all or at least he was so why rune his reputation..

For no other reason than to spew disinformation of which has been used to discredit the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. For an example, he says:

...no Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors.

But the following videos have proven that he was not telling the truth.





American 11 Strikes WTC 1

And, these photos have proven him wrong as well.

Photo 1: American 11 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 11 Wreckage

a reply to: Phage

As to why he would spread false information. How about this; to thrill his fans. It's not unheard of.

OK, I did not ask you but thats a good answer, and it fits...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok I get it, no argument from me..

Message was long and has been deleted. Early viewers saw it if any which is enough. Why did I delete it?

Because I did and I will not respond to any further inqueries on here. Any caching mechanisms or early readers have what I wrote and can do as they please with the information which is all public domain.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

o why do you think he is doing that? He is the most accomplished pilot of all or at least he was so why rune his reputation..

For no other reason than to spew disinformation of which has been used to discredit the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. For an example, he says:

...no Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors.

But the following videos have proven that he was not telling the truth.

American 11 Strikes WTC 1

And, these photos have proven him wrong as well.

Photo 1: American 11 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 11 Wreckage

originally posted by: BlackOp007
Message was long and has been deleted. Early viewers saw it if any which is enough. Why did I delete it?

Because I did and I will not respond to any further inqueries on here. Any caching mechanisms or early readers have what I wrote and can do as they please with the information which is all public domain.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

o why do you think he is doing that? He is the most accomplished pilot of all or at least he was so why rune his reputation..

For no other reason than to spew disinformation of which has been used to discredit the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. For an example, he says:

...no Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors.

But the following videos have proven that he was not telling the truth.

American 11 Strikes WTC 1

And, these photos have proven him wrong as well.

Photo 1: American 11 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 11 Wreckage

you deleted your post but won't say why?