I Was A "Professional" 9/11 "Truther" (And I Still Am!)

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
Which is why I accept it when 2 Engineers from Boeing who work on Government Contracts question a 5 Inch 'gap' given to estimate the size of a Less Than 30 Inch Object.

You really are very confused, so your size measurement comes from what someone said on a website.... ever stopped to think the people onsite who recovered the 757 engine parts would have measured it, and had it confirmed? Or do you think they would have just guessed the size?

Because to me, it seems... that's the crux of everything. We need to be accurate with the measurement... 5 Inch gap is not accurate. So was it 'weak math' or 'cover up'.

You are relying on what 2 guys are estimating from a website to claim a conspiracy!

and they aren't buying 25-30 because the range screams inaccuracy.

Screams inaccuracy? What a load of nonsense.

You also seem to want to ignore the fact that at Zacarias Moussaoui's trial he agreed that the engine was from Flight 77....if it wasn't his lawyer would have objected.

1. The estimate I am given comes from 2 Engineers from Boeing. I never said they got their estimate off a Website. You assume that. I can't tell you where they got their estimate, because I don't know.

2. I would love to believe, since the Engine Disc is a real object, that some one has an accurate measurement of it. Since, you know, they could simply measure it. YOU didn't give me that. You gave me a web-site, which said 25-30 Inches. That's YOUR site I'm taking the information from. Do you have another Site, from people that actually MEASURED TEH OBJECT ITSELF? If so, please link it.

In other words, do not presume to get pissy at me that I used YOUR link that YOU gave me to show a problem. Please, by all means, Produce a Link that stats the actual size of the object. I've already said that would put this to bed. Instead, you didn't do that and you came at me for using the Info you provided.

3. One does not require a 5 Inch Range to determine the Size of a Less Than 30 Inch Object... that's not BS at all. No matter how mad you get when typing it.

a reply to: KillerKell

Boeing just patented their own engine using laser and nuclear technology. BOEING patented it. Not Rolls. Not GE. They designed the thing from the ground up. So no, I'm not wrong at all. They didn't contract this one out at all.

And they still, as I stated, to this day have Engineers that reverse-engineer existing engines, even obsolete ones, to continually improve their ability.

So you can't tell me that a Company that just a year ago Patented an Engine... doesn't do that.

That's a far cry from designing the engines used in the 911 planes.
You are flat out wrong on your assessment of the 911 engines.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: KillerKell

Boeing just patented their own engine using laser and nuclear technology. BOEING patented it. Not Rolls. Not GE. They designed the thing from the ground up. So no, I'm not wrong at all. They didn't contract this one out at all.

And they still, as I stated, to this day have Engineers that reverse-engineer existing engines, even obsolete ones, to continually improve their ability.

So you can't tell me that a Company that just a year ago Patented an Engine... doesn't do that.

That's a far cry from designing the engines used in the 911 planes.
You are flat out wrong on your assessment of the 911 engines.

Which is it? Do they design engines or don't they? Obviously, the DO. And a Blanket Statement was made to the contrary.

By the same person who told me "Read these reports, they'll explain"... in which 25-30 Inches was mention. So no, they didn't 'explain', his 'Defense' sent me to flawed information, which he then got upset at me about. Of course that was the exact same information that was put forth in 2006 as well, so multiple sources confirm '25-30 Inches', which is to say multiple sources use a flawed calculation as 'Evidence'.

Also, I never said the Engineers DESIGNED the JT8D, I said they've WORKED on them. Which they have done. Boeing works on a LOT of Engines, both of their own design and others, both from a Schematic view and from bringing in actual Engines to physically break down and rebuild.

No where did I say these 2 Engineers DESINGED the JT8D. That's a straw man.

There likely isn't a Jet Engine in existence that Boeing hasn't done some kind of work on, whether that's having guys try to run up Schematics of their own or bringing them in house and tearing them apart or even going to those Producers and learning directly from them. Because that's how Boeing keeps pushing this stuff forward, to the point of leading the way with a Laser/Nuclear Engine.

You think these guys figure this stuff out by pure luck?

I've yet to get a response to why a Less Than 30 Inch Object seemed to have required a 5 Inch 'Range'. It's insane.

I've asked, since some one actually has the ACTUAL OBJECT, to be linked to the ACTUAL SIZE of the Object. Instead of linking me to that... he got pissy about it.

That's all it takes. Link me to the ACTUAL SIZE of that Engine Disc. What he linked me to said "25-30 Inches", which is NOT the Actual Size and uses an absurd 17% Margin of Error for an Item that isn't that big to require such a margin. Especially since some one PHYSCIALLY has it and can just measure the damn thing.

I'm still awaiting that information. When I get that information and it states conclusively that the Engine Disc was a specific diameter, which is greater than 22 Inches... then I'm satisfied.

Until then, I'm skeptical. As anyone should be.

He assured me he was linking me precisely that, hard core fact that would refute my claims. Except, it didn't. It opened another question on the Engine Disc, one he didn't like me asking.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: KillerKell

Boeing just patented their own engine using laser and nuclear technology. BOEING patented it. Not Rolls. Not GE. They designed the thing from the ground up. So no, I'm not wrong at all. They didn't contract this one out at all.

And they still, as I stated, to this day have Engineers that reverse-engineer existing engines, even obsolete ones, to continually improve their ability.

So you can't tell me that a Company that just a year ago Patented an Engine... doesn't do that.

That's a far cry from designing the engines used in the 911 planes.
You are flat out wrong on your assessment of the 911 engines.

Which is it? Do they design engines or don't they? Obviously, the DO. And a Blanket Statement was made to the contrary.

By the same person who told me "Read these reports, they'll explain"... in which 25-30 Inches was mention. So no, they didn't 'explain', his 'Defense' sent me to flawed information, which he then got upset at me about. Of course that was the exact same information that was put forth in 2006 as well, so multiple sources confirm '25-30 Inches', which is to say multiple sources use a flawed calculation as 'Evidence'.

Also, I never said the Engineers DESIGNED the JT8D, I said they've WORKED on them. Which they have done. Boeing works on a LOT of Engines, both of their own design and others, both from a Schematic view and from bringing in actual Engines to physically break down and rebuild.

No where did I say these 2 Engineers DESINGED the JT8D. That's a straw man.

There likely isn't a Jet Engine in existence that Boeing hasn't done some kind of work on, whether that's having guys try to run up Schematics of their own or bringing them in house and tearing them apart or even going to those Producers and learning directly from them. Because that's how Boeing keeps pushing this stuff forward, to the point of leading the way with a Laser/Nuclear Engine.

You think these guys figure this stuff out by pure luck?

I've yet to get a response to why a Less Than 30 Inch Object seemed to have required a 5 Inch 'Range'. It's insane.

I've asked, since some one actually has the ACTUAL OBJECT, to be linked to the ACTUAL SIZE of the Object. Instead of linking me to that... he got pissy about it.

That's all it takes. Link me to the ACTUAL SIZE of that Engine Disc. What he linked me to said "25-30 Inches", which is NOT the Actual Size and uses an absurd 17% Margin of Error for an Item that isn't that big to require such a margin. Especially since some one PHYSCIALLY has it and can just measure the damn thing.

I'm still awaiting that information. When I get that information and it states conclusively that the Engine Disc was a specific diameter, which is greater than 22 Inches... then I'm satisfied.

Until then, I'm skeptical. As anyone should be.

He assured me he was linking me precisely that, hard core fact that would refute my claims. Except, it didn't. It opened another question on the Engine Disc, one he didn't like me asking.

a reply to: KillerKell

Do you assume you know what segment of turbo fan blading of the engine you are looking at. A violent crash wouldn't have any possible chance of separating the different fan blade segments? The first stages of the fan segments are larger as they start the process of compressing the air, and grow less in diameter as compression increases. Then the staging grows larger again in the expansion / combustion portion. (Steam turbines and natural gas combustion engine also use different segments of fan staging of different diameters.)


Funny everything you were "told" first hand were loose change and conspiracists talking points. Were you consulted for loose change?

Article that addresses your concerns and ironically lists all the items you were "told" first hand?
www.americanthinker.com...


Is this the engine. I don't see the cone for the nose of the shaft. I would say the first and even the second stages of the fan blading are gone.
911review.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

Do you assume you know what segment of turbo fan blading of the engine you are looking at. A violent crash wouldn't have any possible chance of separating the different fan blade segments? The first stages of the fan segments are larger as they start the process of compressing the air, and grow less in diameter as compression increases. Then the staging grows larger again in the expansion / combustion portion. (Steam turbines and natural gas combustion engine also use different segments of fan staging of different diameters.)


Funny everything you were "told" first hand were loose change and conspiracists talking points. Were you consulted for loose change?

Article that addresses your concerns and ironically lists all the items you were "told" first hand?
www.americanthinker.com...


Is this the engine. I don't see the cone for the nose of the shaft. I would say the first and even the second stages of the fan blading are gone.
911review.org...

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. In either of those links given, could you please show the specific and accurate measurement of the Engine Disc.

I mean, they have the actual object. I think that means they would be fully capable, without needing a photo, to measure it and then report the actual diameter. Does this seem to difficult a task... a tape measure placed to the object?

Can you please show me that.

originally posted by: KillerKell
I think that means they would be fully capable, without needing a photo, to measure it and then report the actual diameter. Does this seem to difficult a task... a tape measure placed to the object?

Can you please show me that.

Why would they? We know what plane hit the Pentagon, we also know conspiracy theorists would not believe anything that destroys their conspiracy, so why would they believe the government about this?

a reply to: KillerKell

Show me a diagram of a turbofan engine that lists a "engine disc".

If the leading intake fan is gone, the smaller compressor disc is what will be seen.

Which diameter are you referring to? Intake fan diameter? Low pressure compressor disc? High pressure compressor disc? High pressure turbine disc. Low pressure turbine disc. (Note, the compressor and turbine sets have different stages. Each stage has an inherent diameter.). Which set of turbine discs and corresponding shaft?


"There may be as many as three concentric shafts, rotating at independent speeds, with as many sets of turbines and compressors.". From
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
I think that means they would be fully capable, without needing a photo, to measure it and then report the actual diameter. Does this seem to difficult a task... a tape measure placed to the object?

Can you please show me that.

Why would they? We know what plane hit the Pentagon, we also know conspiracy theorists would not believe anything that destroys their conspiracy, so why would they believe the government about this?

Because, usually, when doing an investigation people are as specific as possible.

Or does that change? We can just half ass it... because Theorist won't believe it anyways?

Lame excuse.

So I'll ask the very simple question once again... can you direct me to a link with an accurate measurement of the Engine Disc?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

Show me a diagram of a turbofan engine that lists a "engine disc".

If the leading intake fan is gone, the smaller compressor disc is what will be seen.

Which diameter are you referring to? Intake fan diameter? Low pressure compressor disc? High pressure compressor disc? High pressure turbine disc. Low pressure turbine disc. (Note, the compressor and turbine sets have different stages. Each stage has an inherent diameter.). Which set of turbine discs and corresponding shaft?


"There may be as many as three concentric shafts, rotating at independent speeds, with as many sets of turbines and compressors.". From
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Semantics now, is it?

Obviously what we refer to as the 'Engine Disc' is the item in the photograph, which is a 'disc' from the 'engine'.

They have the actual piece... so if they had the actual dimensions then we could tell exactly which piece it is.

Because all you are saying is "Well, there's no way to tell what it is or to specifically place it"... when that's what they are selling. That they know exactly what it is to the point of being able to specify which Engine it came from.

And you wonder why some people still aren't convinced.

Are you listening to yourself?

We were told an Object, that has an actual diameter... is 25-30 Inches. This is unacceptable, especially since they have the object and can physically measure the diameter.

Which is all I'm asking for, the specific and accurate diameter of the Evidence that was pictured which is claimed to prove what Engine and thus what Plane hit the Pentagon.

How is this a difficult question? How is this something that shouldn't be known and part of the reports? Please, for the love of God tell me what is so difficult about what I'm asking?

Can you link me to the ACTUAL size of the Object in the picture? Yes or no? If no... why not?

originally posted by: KillerKell
We were told an Object, that has an actual diameter... is 25-30 Inches. This is unacceptable, especially since they have the object and can physically measure the diameter.

Your confusion is showing again, the people who have the object never said it was 25-30 inches....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
We were told an Object, that has an actual diameter... is 25-30 Inches. This is unacceptable, especially since they have the object and can physically measure the diameter.

Your confusion is showing again, the people who have the object never said it was 25-30 inches....

I never said they did.

I said what I was told in 2006, which seems to be the exact same information you gave me in the link you provided, said it was 25-30 Inches.

You've yet to show me anything saying differently, which is what I'm asking for.

I've said my guys could be wrong with their 21-22 Inch 'estimate', but then all they have from my knowledge is the Photo to go off of. I don't KNOW if that's all they have, but I also don't know that they have more than that.

So again, it seems like an easy fix. Show me something that gives an accurate measurement... which for some reason you just don't do that. If you have it, please produce it.

That's all I've been asking for about 5 Posts now. It's really that simple.

Instead, you keep going around and around... but not clarifying the situation at all.

Which is rather crucial, because you claim that the size of the part makes it certain to be from a 757 and directly correlates to what the part is.

I'm just asking that be backed up by getting the actual diameter of the item.

Why is this so difficult? If it's so easy to resolve, then why don't you go ahead and resolve it already?

This could have been done 5 Posts ago. And it all started with the site YOU sent me to in an attempt to explain it.

originally posted by: KillerKell
So again, it seems like an easy fix. Show me something that gives an accurate measurement...

So you think every piece of Flight 77 wreckage was measured, just so a conspiracy theorist could claim they were wrong

a reply to: KillerKell

I asked a very simple question. Is the measurement of diameter across the intake fan, or which compressor disc, or which turbine disc?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
So again, it seems like an easy fix. Show me something that gives an accurate measurement...

So you think every piece of Flight 77 wreckage was measured, just so a conspiracy theorist could claim they were wrong

It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theorist, is what you are missing. It has everything to do with an investigation being accurate.

Because what you told me was that you could say EXACTLY what piece that was to tell me exactly what Engine it came from. Now you can't even tell me the size of the object.

The amazing thing is that neutronflux is attempting to back you up, but in doing so he is also saying the object can't be identified.

Which is it? Can you specifically tell me what piece that is to make it conclusive to which Engine it comes from... or not?

Because this all began with me saying "At least get the Engine right", which lead to you saying "They did, this proves it"... yet the 'proof' can be questioned and the answer doesn't seem to exist. Because I questioned it, and you STILL haven't provided the answer to my question.

You seriously don't see the issue with this? It's almost like you're trolling at this point... because I've asked you to provide information that would resolve this rather easily, and you can't provide it so instead you say "Why should they" as a defense.

It's silly.

Of course, not so silly that you weren't high and mighty when I introduced the topic in the first place. Full of superiority and claiming my ignorance. Doubting my sources.

Yet now, today, you still can't answer the simple answer that would finish this conversation and prove you correct.

And you think that's okay, that's reasonable.

a reply to: KillerKell

If you have any idea what you are referring too, you should be able to say something this. Example: the picture shows no cone covering the hub of the intake fan. The picture shows no intake fan or the first stage low pressure compressor disc. The picture shows what remains of the engine. All three concentric shafts are still in one assembly. The top most disc seen in the picture is the 2nd stage low pressure disc. For model engine y, the 2nd stage low pressure disc should be diameter x, But this disc is diameter z.

There is no engine disc in a turbofan jet, there is blading.

A turbofan fan jet has multiple stages of blading you are referring to as discs.

From stage to stage, the diameter changes.

The flow path through a turbofan jet fan is not a single consistent diameter. It changes.

If you cannot name the stage of blading you are referring to, you can not prove you are giving the correct diameter for that part.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

I asked a very simple question. Is the measurement of diameter across the intake fan, or which compressor disc, or which turbine disc?

The 'Engine Disc' is reported to be the "Front Fan Hub and Compressor Assembly" by Karl Schwartz. Beyond Karl, those debunking him say it's a EITHER part of a fan, compressor or turbine rotor. To which they then claim it's some where between 25-30 Inches in Diameter.

So I don't know, you tell me. Because I have a group of people 'debunking' on one side who give me 3 possible options, and then turn around and say that conclusively determines the Engine despite not even knowing the actual size of the object.

But then for 'proof' they directly compare it to the diameter of Compressor Hubs and Turbine Hubs.

They do go forth to add SOME clarity in saying "Whatever piece this is..." meaning they still don't know, so how am I to know... "it appears to be only the central hub compressor OR turbine stage".

Then they continue to say "most likely a compressor stage" and "it is difficult to tell which compressor disc it is since the six rotors of the intermediate pressure section and the six high pressure compressor discs are of similar size". They say the difference in size is the Blades, not the Diameter, between pieces from the same part. In other words, what they are suggesting is that the Compressor Hubs will be of the same diameter, but would have different 'blade lengths' and the Turbine Hubs would be of the same diameter (though different from the Compressor Hubs) but of varying 'blade lengths'.

Now, what I'm being told by 2 Engineers at Boeing (or more apt, what I was told back in 2006) is that the estimated size was wrong, and they calculated (through what ever means they used) the object to be 21-22 Inches. Which places it as a Hub to either a JT8D Compressor Hub or a JT8D Turbine Hub.

If the diameter is larger than 22 Inches (well, 22.5 to be fair)... it CAN NOT BE from a JT8D.

So all that has to be done to eliminate the JT8D... is to give the ACTUAL DIAMTER of the Object, which is either a Compressor Hub or Turbine Hub. It's that simple a solution.

The only reference to the size of this object I've been given, to include from people here on this site... is "25-30 Inches" which is dismissed on the basis of inaccuracy, especially for an Object that is in custody and can now be physically verified for size. To which then... wouldn't those people write a report for confirmation? Everything in the Government comes with a Report attached, after all.

So please, send me to that report that gives me the accurate diameter of the "Engine Disc" so that the JT8D can be eliminated. That's quiet literally all I am asking.

You'd think by now, in 2016... we'd have a report of exactly what that item turned out to be, wouldn't you? Instead of the "Well, it's this or that and it's from this size to that size".

By the way, my Boeing guys feel it to be a Turbine Hub. However, we could also assume this because it's the larger piece, getting them closer to the 25-30 claim by these reports. So if they are just pushing an agenda, they could be using the larger size to 'hedge their bets'. This is plausible.

But what reason do I have to not believe them... when a simple document referencing what the item was finally found to be with accurate dimensions given to it isn't available? Or at least, I've asked for and hasn't been given.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

If you have any idea what you are referring too, you should be able to say something this. Example: the picture shows no cone covering the hub of the intake fan. The picture shows no intake fan or the first stage low pressure compressor disc. The picture shows what remains of the engine. All three concentric shafts are still in one assembly. The top most disc seen in the picture is the 2nd stage low pressure disc. For model engine y, the 2nd stage low pressure disc should be diameter x, But this disc is diameter z.

There is no engine disc in a turbofan jet, there is blading.

A turbofan fan jet has multiple stages of blading you are referring to as discs.

From stage to stage, the diameter changes.

The flow path through a turbofan jet fan is not a single consistent diameter. It changes.

If you cannot name the stage of blading you are referring to, you can not prove you are giving the correct diameter for that part.

Again, it's this lack of information that is bothering me.

The Government PHYSCIALLY has the piece. Where is the UPDATE to these reports? For example, answer your own question. What, exactly, is the piece? It's 2016... they should have figured it out by now, right?

I shouldn't be stuck with old reports that give multiple things it COULD be and a 5 Inch Range on an item they can simple stick a tape measure to for an accurate measurement.

So please, send me to the UPDATED and ACCURATE report. Please. I'm begging at this point.

Because the reports I was sent to, that was supposed to put all this to rest, is out of date making assumptions off of pictures and inaccurate.

So resolve that issue for me. Send me to something that absolutely verifies what the piece is with accurate dimensions.

Can you do that? Yes or no?

Because I've far and away explained that I'm no Jet Engine Expert... but Reports should be able to clarify for even those who are not Rocket Scientist.

You ask me a question I can't answer... because the very reports I'm sent to don't answer it.

a reply to: KillerKell



F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to compel the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, were not located.

Such wreckage includes the Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) of American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, for which no inventory control serial numbers were publically assigned.
Defendant's motion reads in part:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records.

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"

However, this claim conflicts with public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis.

"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."

911blogger.com...

There is more information about this in the above source.

I do not if any of this will help identify the engine parts that were allegedly found.

a reply to: KillerKell

I'm sorry, but out of the conspiracists and skeptics, you were the first person to bring to light this buried item. If you dig around a bit, you can find references, but it seems to be off the radar now. I am interested on what takes hold and what is ignored by both sides. The engine seems to be like the seismic data from the WTC. It seems to catch for a bit then goes out of favor. Only the most obscure skeptics will not let it drop. Not to give you ammunition, but the two items are treated similar. The skeptics sort of debunk it. The conspiracists seem to poke at it. Then they go away with both side sort of ignoring them with the conspiracists taking up their favorite theories again? Seismic data and the engine arguments are not on the short list of conspiracists talking points for proving inside job. This is my impartial view point. On strictly seismic data and your engine arguments. So they are easy to debunk, or they are really hard to prove?