Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10285)	3/9/2005 12:28:04 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "even though one can't read the manufacturer's details on the engine casing one can see at a glance that it is an airplane engine and that it is too small to be used in a 767." Here are some 737 photos: airliners.net And some 767 photos: airliners.net I'm no kind of airplane expert. From a layman's point of view, the planes look much the same to me and I can see no obvious difference in the engines. I've seen all sorts of odd claims about 737 parts being found rather than 767 parts, but I have yet to see anything that strikes me as being from a credible source. All of the claims appear to come from blog type formats, and the usual approach seems to be to show a photo of 9/11 wreckage, then claim that some aspect of the parts shown are inconsistent with 767 parts, WITHOUT SHOWING THE 767 PART REFERENCED. The persons making the claims typically assure everyone they work in the aircraft industry, but if this is so, why don't they just scan some images from their collections of Chilton's jet engine repair manuals? Most mechanics go through some kind of training to acquire the necessary skills to repair whatever it is they are going to be repairing. If there is anything in the wide world that may be fixed after it breaks, and that someone has NOT published a manual to tell how it is done, complete with mechanical drawings and/or photos, I have yet to see an example of such. Wouldn't anyone who could be considered any kind of expert on jet engines have easy access to such publications?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10285)	3/10/2005 3:58:28 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: Ray, like you, doesn't accept the evidence of the engine either. But his reason is that the photo is blurred and... As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the quality of video/pics... I just look at the calendar: March 2005 --that is, THREE AND A HALF years after the event! For the first three years, it's been impossible for unofficial researchers like us to dig up video evidence of plane debris for the WTC crash... I very well remember SI member Andy Thomas sent me a public post, asking "a plane engine maybe?" --meaning there were no debris found in Manhattan. But Thomas' post was written in Sept or Oct 2001!! Likewise, I brought to your notice that no pictures or videos have been available that show the South/South-west sides of the WTC ON --or shortly after-- "impact". My interpretation of such a conspicuous lack of video/picture of the WTC facades OPPOSITE the bombed ones is that the media-military complex swiftly imposed a blackout on such video evidence. Again, their motive is obvious: since no planes ever crashed into the WTC towers, since the towers were actually bombed inside out --that is, explosives were set off in WTC offices-- the WTC facades opposite the bombings (ie south/south-west sides) were not damaged and remained perfectly intact. It doesn't take an engineering genius to smell a rat here: a Boeing 7xx crashed into the WTC and not a single bolt burst through and out??!?! Yet the no-planes theory will remain credible regardless of all the "new" (and fake) videos and pictures that may suddenly crop up on the internet that show the south-west sides of the WTC on the time of impact. More than three years after the event, the time is not to analyze "brand-new" evidence again and again, the time is rather to make out the political ins and outs of the whole conspiracy. Gus