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

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Did it look like one of these engines Bruce? Howard Hughs flew this one.

When did Hughes fly a Dornier?

You do not even know the difference between a Dornier Do X and a Hughes H-4 Hercules!

a reply to: hellobruce Just checking if you know the difference



Heres your spruce goose Bruce

a reply to: hellobruce

Nope, I don't know the first thing about a Pratt & Whitney JT8D Jet Engine. Like I don't know it goes on a Boeing 727 or retrofitted for an A-3 Skywarrior.


I do know this was the remains they found... the remains of a P&W JT8D.

And I do know the 'plane' at the Pentagon was reported to be a 757... not a 727.

Which means if a 757 had equipped those JT8D's, the 757 wouldn't have made it off the Runway to get to the Pentagon.

But other than that, nope... don't know anything about it.

How many Pratt & Whitney's have you worked on, by the way?

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: hellobruce Just checking if you know the difference

No, like all truthers you just got caught making crap up, like not recognising a 757 engine!

originally posted by: KillerKell
a reply to: hellobruce

Nope, I don't know the first thing about a Pratt & Whitney JT8D Jet Engine.

True, you do not even know what one looks like!

www.aerospaceweb.org...

911review.org...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: hellobruce Just checking if you know the difference

No, like all truthers you just got caught making crap up, like not recognising a 757 engine!

There are Truthers and there are falsers The falsers are a faith based group. kinda like a religion

a reply to: hellobruce

But it's not. It's a 727 Engine.


Now, I completely believe a 727 hit the Pentagon... I have no issues with that at all.


I don't believe a 757 did.


This could be a simple mistake, and easy enough typo even... but the Engine they give us and the Plane they state don't match up. I'd just like that clarified. If a 727 hit the Pentagon, cool. Good enough for me.

But you aren't strapping two of those on a 757 and getting anywhere.

Now the reason I say this is because I was Stationed at Fort Carson, CO. and have some friends smarter than me that work for Boeing. They tell me, from what they saw in photos of the remains of the engines, that it is for sure the engine to a 727. Because they build them.


Now, if you build 757 Engines... then maybe you and them can debate about which Engine it is. But my source comes from people at Boeing who design and build these things, and they tell me it's made for 727.

Which is why I'm completely open to a 727 having hit the Pentagon. No issues there at all.

I'm open to be persuaded however, I always entertain new evidence.

a reply to: hellobruce

Again, you can talk to two guys at Boeing who design these things and argue with them. They told me what they believe the Engines are and what they are intended to be put on.

So I'll ask you again... how many Pratt and Whitney JT8D have you worked on? If none... I'll continue to take their word for it.

originally posted by: KillerKell
a reply to: hellobruce

Again, you can talk to two guys at Boeing who design these things and argue with them.

Their names are? You are not even aware Boeing do not design engines!

a reply to: hellobruce

Buddy, Boeing designs everything from Golf Clubs to Defense Systems. I don't think you know all the Contracts that Boeing has, both Private and Government.


But I guess you think guys like GE and Rolls Royce just do all the work, huh? No consultation or anything.

I guess those Engineers at Boeing didn't Patent a Laser/Nuclear Engine in 2015 either, huh? Since they don't work on Engines and all.

Guess old Robert Budica just pulled those Schematics out his ass, right?

But hey, they don't work on Jet Engines... cool story.

Now, what you MIGHT have meant is they don't run PRODUCTION... that's another thing entirely.

But you're off your damn rocker if you think Boeing doesn't Design Jet Engines. The STILL do it, to this day. They never stopped.

Also, in what realm do you think it appropriate to name sources? In highly specialized fields with intense job scrutiny? Seriously? You just give up sources like that, do you? Ever keep any for longer than 5 minutes? Think these guys might like to STAY EMPLOYED?

So again, Two Engineers who work for Boeing and have worked with the P&W tell me THAT is the engine at the crash site of the Pentagon. They tell me it won't take a 757 anywhere but is specifically designed for the 727.

For them, that means it was a 727 that hit the Pentagon. Now, what ever the implications of that... I have no clue. But if it was a 727 and not a 757 that should really be clarified. As I said, could literally be a Typo... Boeing has a ton of 7X7 types.

By the way, their Laser/Nuclear isn't being developed just for Jets... they are adding Defense to the application. On that Engine... that you say Boeing doesn't work with.

Of course I did ask you how many of those Engines you've worked on. Perhaps you can give some credibility through your personal knowledge. You never answered that. So until you show some Credibility, I'm going with the guys that have helped design and work on Jet Engines, and specifically had experience with the P&W.

You can go on acting like Developers and Producers don't work together... like guys at Boeing are incapable of getting IDs to work together with GE and Royce and that Boeing doesn't know anything about Jet Engines... or you can drop your superior attitude and give your area of expertise.

Because as I said... I don't know # about Jet Engines. I know what 2 Engineers who have experience with them told me... and I have you. And so far you... are doing very little outside of acting like an ass and making some very off base claims in the process... instead of explaining what you know about Jet Engines.

What I will tell you about my guys is they worked in Colorado, on Wooten Road, and at that time they were working directly with Contracts through Fort Carson, where I was Stationed. I was given this Information in 2012. But there names or addresses you won't get. Not until they say they are ready to retire and are willing to allow me to release their names. I don't play with people's lives like that, because it's not the right thing to do.

a reply to: KillerKell


He gave you a link to an aerospace page which shows the photos of the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon, accompanied by the drawings from the Rolls Royce tech data that shows the wreckage came from an RB211 engine, the type of which were installed on Boeing 757s.

So, despite the fact you say you are willing to be persuaded, apparently, you do not wish to look at the evidence which points out your beliefs are mistaken.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
a reply to: hellobruce

Nope, I don't know the first thing about a Pratt & Whitney JT8D Jet Engine.

True, you do not even know what one looks like!

www.aerospaceweb.org...

911review.org...

The suggestion I am given is that the Photo does not show an object of 25-30 Inches Diameter, but of LESS than 25 Inches. Which puts it at the JT8D size.

I am also told this is the only piece in enough shape for be verified. The other pieces being 'inconclusive'.

Their entire focus in on the Engine Disc, which they say is from a JT8D. Because it's not the size that's commonly given as it's size. Which I tend to believe, since USUALLY when you do these kind of Size Comparisons... they don't have such a big range. We were given a Range of 5 Inches... 'it is 25 to 30 Inches'... that's not how it works. These computations are way more precise than that, which I've witnessed in the Military.

At the end of the day, it doesn't mean that the piece isn't the right size for the 757. I does mean the dimensions we were given were far from accurate or the Range would have been much less.

So it really all goes down to the Size of that Engine Disc. If it's greater than 22 Inches IN REALITY... then it can't be a JT8D. If it IS 22 Inches... then it can't be from a 757, and most likely is from a JT8D.

Now, as for the Low Pressure Turbine and the Combustion Section... they seem legit to me. But, as you've stated, I don't know a JT8D from Kermit the Frog. Their stance is those 'extra debris' are 'inconclusive'.

For them, they feel the size of the Disc is exaggerated or not accurately calculated, and they give the 5 Inch 'room for error' to support that.

We can get the Height of a Man from a Satellite in Space, to the Inch. FBI uses technology daily that allows the proper size of an object to be determined. They find it fishy that a range of 5 Inches is required to suggest a size, and their 'calculations' (I quote, because I don't know if they did actual calculations) is 21-22 Inches. Which puts them dead-set for the JT8D.

For those still looking into this, really what they are looking for is a more specific and accurate report on the Dimension of the Engine Disc. That's the heart of the matter. If an ACCURATE dimension is given... not some 5 Inch Range of Error... then cool. Of course, showing the work of how it was arrived at would be great too.

originally posted by: KillerKell
We can get the Height of a Man from a Satellite in Space, to the Inch.

What a load of nonsense you post!

All you have are 2 made up people you claim work at Boeing

For those still looking into this

It has been looked into, it is a RR engine from a 757.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: KillerKell


He gave you a link to an aerospace page which shows the photos of the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon, accompanied by the drawings from the Rolls Royce tech data that shows the wreckage came from an RB211 engine, the type of which were installed on Boeing 757s.

So, despite the fact you say you are willing to be persuaded, apparently, you do not wish to look at the evidence which points out your beliefs are mistaken.

Which I had to take time and go over, along with going back to old notes as to why they disagreed with such reports.

However, he also made some pretty down right wrong claims as well. Like saying Boeing doesn't design Jet Engines. They absolutely do, they just Patented another one in 2015. But beyond that, they also send their people to GE, to RR and to other places and work along side them. And beyond that, they still have Engineers that do things like take Old Engines and look at how they would have approached building them TODAY. They are ALWAYS reverse engineering or working on even Older Model Engines to push the envelope on Modern or Current Engines.

So if a guy from Boeing says he's worked with JT8D's, he's likely tore them apart, developed New Schematics on how they would approach building it differently Today, and did a lot of research into the Engine for Practical Reasons and Application. He likely did it in a Small Team as well, with collaboration. And he likely went to the Designer and Producers of JT8D's to get information directly from them as well.

Because that's what Boeing Engineers do.

Now, the majority of his Points are upheld by the Engine Disc being 25-30 Inches. This would indeed make it to large for a JT8D. However, they laugh at 25-30 Inches. They say any professionally using proper methods would never use a 5 Inch Range on an Object of no more than 30 Inches... that's a 17% 'Room for Error'. They conclude, and it's unconfirmed by me, that it's 21-22 Inch. Using only a 1 Inch 'Range'. Doesn't make them right, mind you... it does make their evidence seem to be more accurate as the Range is much less.

Take into account that we have Technology today where we can gauge a persons height within a single Inch from Satellite Images from freaking Space. Within an Inch, on something in the 5 to 7 Foot Range... we're talking about an Object less than 30 Inches by everyone's opinion. The FBI has technology they use almost daily that can get the right height of a human being within 1-2 Inches. This isn't exactly cutting edge technology... so the point that a 5 Inch Range of Error on a Less Than 30 Inch Objective is ridiculous... holds weight.

Now, mind you, these are their points. But I do find it to be a good point.

Where I have to step away from them is that they say the other pieces are Inconclusive. Me, knowing nothing of Jet Engines, do see the Combustor and Low Pressure Turbine as very intriguing and supporting the 757. But I'm not a Rocket Scientist either. They state those items are to far destroyed to make certain as to what they are or go to. Seems legit to me, they suggest otherwise.

It all hinges, really, on the actual Diameter of the Engine Disc... which they say is up to debate.

Hope that clears things up.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
We can get the Height of a Man from a Satellite in Space, to the Inch.

What a load of nonsense you post!

All you have are 2 made up people you claim work at Boeing

It's not non-sense at all. I've been in the Sit Rooms when we've pulled Satellite Images and seen it done first hand. While the US Army has pretty good technology, I'm sure there are Private Corporations who have nicer toys than we do.

But let me ask you this. On an Object of Less than 30 Inches... does one require a 5 Inch 'Range of Error'? Exactly how accurate were those calculations to end up "meh, you know, some where between 25 and 30 Inches". That's a 17% Margin of "We don't know".

Now I'm not the best at Math, so I couldn't even begin to do it. But you're telling me on an Object of Less Than 30 Inches the best and brightest minds in the World can't get it within 5 Inches? Seriously?

originally posted by: KillerKell
On an Object of Less than 30 Inches... does one require a 5 Inch 'Range of Error'? Exactly how accurate were those calculations to end up "meh, you know, some where between 25 and 30 Inches". That's a 17% Margin of "We don't know".?

Where exactly are you getting that statement from?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
On an Object of Less than 30 Inches... does one require a 5 Inch 'Range of Error'? Exactly how accurate were those calculations to end up "meh, you know, some where between 25 and 30 Inches". That's a 17% Margin of "We don't know".?

Where exactly are you getting that statement from?

Which statement? That the object was 25-30 Inches? Well the first time I got it was in notes in 2006. Then next time I got it was in the very first Link you gave me.

Now the information on accuracy when relating to quantifying sizes of objects in Photos comes from a variety of sources, from people I know in US Army Intel who from time to time have to 'size' things, to the FBI.

Also it's some easy stuff to pull up on YouTube... people (and programs) can calculate off Shadows and not need a 17% Error Range.

I can't. Like I said... Math isn't my thing. But then I can't send a Rocket to Space either... but there are certainly people that do it.

In Iraq I've watched Privates First Class take Satellite Imagery and calculate distances between objects, grades of terrain and Heights. I've seen them reference other objects of known sizes (say a HMMWV) and use things like Angles of Lights/Shadows. That's PFCs. Damn smart PFCs... but were talking guys just out of Basic and AIT.

And I know the FBI (and likely the CIA) has their own guys for Imagery as well, and their guys are likely better than ours.

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.

But I did state the other pieces are an excellent point, and seem to have been in good enough condition for others to verify. So I can't tell you what they tell me those pieces are 'inconclusive'. I lack that knowledge.

So I'm not sure which part you're asking me about, but I hope that covered any of the possible situations you were targeting.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude here. So I'd love to hear what you have on the estimated size of the Engine Disc and why the Range given was so large for such an item.

Edit: 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'. Neither being good. What puts it to bed is the exact size of that Engine Disc... over 22 Inches and it's a 757 no questions. Under 25 inches... it's suddenly not a 757 and more questions happen. My guys gave me a better range, 21-22 Inches... doesn't make them right. There match could be wrong. But when given Two Answers, the one most likely to be ACCEPTED as right is the one with the Lowest Range... so theirs SOUNDS 'more right'.

If you can show that thing is 25 Inches... good. We're done at that point, and I'll report back how it was arrived at and send it to them. That's the question they feel hasn't been answered, and they aren't buying 25-30 because the range screams inaccuracy.

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.

a reply to: KillerKell

But you're off your damn rocker if you think Boeing doesn't Design Jet Engines. The STILL do it, to this day.

I'm sorry but you have it wrong.
Boeing sends the engine requirements out for bid.
The engine manufacturers design and manufacture to those specs.

Maybe your theory comes from Eastern block countries but not in the free world.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: KillerKell

But you're off your damn rocker if you think Boeing doesn't Design Jet Engines. The STILL do it, to this day.

I'm sorry but you have it wrong.
Boeing sends the engine requirements out for bid.
The engine manufacturers design and manufacture to those specs.

Maybe your theory comes from Eastern block countries but not in the free world.

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.

You also can't tell me that some of the Boeing Engineers aren't guests at GE, and Rolls, and other Producers, working side by side with them on things that are contracted out. This is a common practice, and not just in the world of Aero-Defense. Many industries allow the practice, and it improves everyone involved.

SO again, I stand by my statement. Because my statement is TRUE.