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

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

I've done investigations, though certainly not to the level of 9/11. NONE of my supervisors would have allowed me to bring forth incomplete work.

It seems to me that the work here is incomplete.

When some one asks "Can you please identify the part in the picture, they you have physical custody of, and with it bring the actual dimensions" and no one can do that... it seems, suspect.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm not saying these Boeing guys are right... I'm saying they've posed a question (and have since 2006) that seems to refused to be answered accurately.

I did lead with 'Get the engine right'... because until they can confirm things like what the item is and it's actual size I can't take their assessment of what the ENGINE is as Fact.

You yourself are saying this has been a tug-of-war the entire time... so if it is debatable and has been the entire time, why is hellobruce acting like all of this has been resolved and explained and shouting down those who dare to raise the question?

Even Informer1958 adds to the discussion while remaining personally neutral... with some saying "We never investigated because we KNEW the model of the Plane" while being countered by Carmody and Blakey that FBI Director Robert Mueller did indeed order such analysis.

All I'm asking for is a bit of Truth here. Yet for some reason being shouted down for it on a website where we propose to be 'seekers of truth'.

I wouldn't mind at all if hellobruce could say "Go to www.whatever and you'll clearly see that the piece was X, which belongs to Y, with dimensions of Z, and that all of this has already been explained". That would be AMAZING. That would end this 'tug-of-war' as you called it. That would be Proof, and we could move on with that Truth.

That's not what happened. I was basically called ignorant, told that some site would explain everything... and now I've found issues with the Site to which hellobruce nor anyone else have been able to answer.

After all, we do know the item exists. We do know our Government has it. This should be the easiest thing in the world.

Sure, some might still try to invalidate the report as coming from 'Big Brother'... and that would be on them. But I ask a reasonable question and want a reasonable answer, and instead am met with attitude from some who have still yet to prove their stance.

It's down right infuriating is what it is.

a reply to: KillerKell

Not to be snide. Just so many things in play. Lawsuits. Proprietary technology. Investigations. Privacy laws. Patten infringement. Court sealed documentation. Who knows. The jet engine maker to the company making the special metal, or the design of the blade shapes might be covered by a companies proprietary information preventing certain things from public release.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

Not to be snide. Just so many things in play. Lawsuits. Proprietary technology. Investigations. Privacy laws. Patten infringement. Court sealed documentation. Who knows. The jet engine maker to the company making the special metal, or the design of the blade shapes might be covered by a companies proprietary information preventing certain things from public release.

Not sure where any of that is relevant here, though. Since we've been given information to what the diameters of these pieces are already. It's how we know if the diameter is greater than 22.5 Inches, it's not from a JT8D for instance. After all, we aren't asking what it's made of. Nor the shape of the blades. We just are asking the diameter of the Engine Disc to properly exclude the JT8D and confirm the appropriate size for a 757.

Now the only things I've investigate were break ins to Conex's and Contraband in Iraq. In no way do I claim these to be of the same level as any investigations of 9/11.

But I do expect Accuracy and Completeness. Anything short opens yourself up scrutiny.

Which is being applied here.

Also, if such was the case... why not release a statement saying exactly that? Now the devil's advocates would say THAT is just a cover up... but since when do we Investigate to prove/disprove Conspiracy Theorists? Such a statement should be part of the Investigation regardless. It should be standard practice.

But what really got to me is someone like hellobruce would try to rail against me, and then back his stance with rather incomplete sites, while telling me I don't know what I'm talking about... all on a forum where we suggests ourselves as 'Seekers of Truth'.

I'm about open expression and a free flow of ideas. Had he turned me to something definitive I'd be all about that. I'm never above being wrong. I ask for that which can completely destroy the information suggested to me by some Boeing Engineers... I was scoffed at for even entertaining their ideas... but yet their concern still has yet to be addressed. All the while I'm the 'looney conspiracy guy' with no leg to stand on.

Had he provided the information he said he was capable of providing this would have been done after my first post. He'd have clearly won the discussion by furthering his stance with actual proof. He was rather smug in his stance, as well.

He was unable to do so, and his only back peddle is to say that 'Conspiracy Theorists wouldn't believe them anyways'. Since when is that a reasonable defense?

So my question still stands. Can anyone show a report of what the item (1) actually is (2) verified by the actual dimensions to (3) properly identify the Engine and thus the Plane? As we know, the FBI absolutely did an Analysis on this, and they physically have the piece in custody.

Why is it 2016... and I can't get anything definitive on this one thing, which seems to be the ENTIRE thing that 'proves' it was the Flight we were told it was.

And why are two Engineers at Boeing being contradicted by some one who can't bring that very information forward? Why am I the fool to consider their stance, when the opposing stance can't provide information they said they could provide?

Now if hellobruce fell into some sticky situation that has yet to be actually resolved... then shouldn't that tell him that some things are still without answer? It may not be his fault, he may not be able to back his claim because no such source exists. To which I would ask, if no such source is available... why are we so certain of our stance? Why are we so certain that was the Flight we were told, if even this small question I ask can not be answered?

So basically I disapprove when some one tries to call me out for having no basis, yet can't give me the evidence to conclude their stance. That's narrow... no, not narrow, closed mindedness at it's best.

But sure, nothing to see with 9/11 at all. They just haven't given the actual facts because Theorists wouldn't believe it anyways. That's what we should be falling in line for.

Basically, this is a bigger deal than it was because some one was rather smug to me, insulting my intelligence... and has still yet to this very post been able to bring the evidence forth that was asked for. It's rather offensive.

a reply to: KillerKell

Finally found an article that used term engine disc. If the link works. This will answer all the questions on disc sizes.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

Finally found an article that used term engine disc. If the link works. This will answer all the questions on disc sizes.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

That's the link already given. In fact it is where the 25-30 Inches part comes from. Which is the point being refuted. The two Engineers from Boeing suggest that disc is in fact 21-22 Inches... though I can't trust there measurement any more than this .org pages.

They do hold a fair point against this .org article though... in that we have the technology even from a picture to not need a 5 Inch Margin to determine the Diameter of something Less Than 30 Inches. Which is why it is suggested that the 25-30 Inches doesn't hold up.

Especially now, that the Item has been in custody and could be studied and measured. I mean, it is 2016.

So what is being asked for is clarification of said 'Engine Disc'. Is it a Hub from the Compressor or the Turbine? What is the Diameter?

This link doesn't provide those articles... so we're right back where we started.

You can't tell me what that item is, nor it's actual size... but can some how use it to determine the Engine and thus Plane. Well, not 'you', but the report there.

Well, actually 'you' as well. From what is given in that Article you can't tell me what piece that is nor it's accurate size.

But they sure do use the estimated 25-30 to disallow for a piece from the JT8D... which means the actual size of that piece sort of is what their entire "We got the right Plane" stance is based upon.

See the issue?

It doesn't take a 17% 'Error Margin' to determine the size of an object... and this was done from the photograph. It's 2016, shouldn't we have the ACTUAL size by now, since the FBI did a complete analysis on every single bit of Crash Debris as ordered by the Director of the FBI?

So no, I do not allow this site and it's claim of '25-30 Inches'. Give me something REAL. Give me FACTS, not guesswork.

There is NO NEED to estimate the Item. We have it. We can physically measure it.

We've had it since September 11, 2001. In 2 Months it will be 15 Years... and I can't get an accurate description and measurement?

a reply to: KillerKell

If persons at the Pentagon cleanup know what hit the Pentagon and from www.aerospaceweb.org... " There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.", why would you measure the part. Because some person on a conspiracy site did not understand the internal diameters of the different discs? Because another conspiracist found a picture and sensationalized it for profit or likes?

Text

Text

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

If persons at the Pentagon cleanup know what hit the Pentagon and from www.aerospaceweb.org... " There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.", why would you measure the part. Because some person on a conspiracy site did not understand the internal diameters of the different discs? Because another conspiracist found a picture and sensationalized it for profit or likes?

Because part of the determining of the Engine comes from their identification of the item.

It being an "RB211-535" directly hinges on that part.

Also, when an FBI Director says he wants an analysis... you don't just measure what you want. You do an analysis. A thorough one. Which means you catalog evidence, which usually comes with verifying evidence accurately.

Also the site you gave me isn't from a conspiracist, but from those directly supporting the Government's Conclusion... but doing so while giving inaccurate information.

Which is why I do not accept things like "Why do it, if it will just be refuted anyways". You do it, because it's your JOB to do it. You do it because the integrity of your investigation depends on you doing it. Which is a standard that we shouldn't make exceptions for.

In fact, the very quote you give came into question in another quote that you gave me. You are rehashing the quote about them having known what the Engine was... but you already posted another quote where that was called into question by the Director of the FBI ordering the analysis.

X

a reply to: KillerKell

Did you read the article, the disc might not even be the right size for anything due do to the blade tips being gone.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

Did you read the article, the disc might not even be the right size for anything due do to the blade tips being gone.

I did. But I also read them making a great deal about the actual hub, sans blades.

They use the hub to refute other engines.

That's an inconsistency right?

So we can't say on one side that the hub is meaningful and refutes other engines, then on the other side say it might not be the right size for anything due to blade tips being gone.

See the issue? That object being '25-30 Inches' is how they go about saying it's not a JT8D. That's rather crucial. That's a major claim. If only, you know... it was accurate and proven. Which is what I'm asking for. Which should be simple since the FBI took this item in Custody almost 15 Years ago.

I am pretty sure all parts of a jet planes are marked for identification and tracked in accordance with FAA regulations. I bet there are identifying marks on the disc that help indicate manufacturing data and use to record what specific engine it was placed in. I bet you will let me know if there is no tracking for the fan, compressor, turbine discs concerning manufacturing / assembly/ maintenance/ failure records.

originally posted by: KillerKell
Especially now, that the Item has been in custody and could be studied and measured.

Why does it have to be studied and measured? We know what it is, part of the engine from Flight 77 so what would "measuring it, or studying it" actually show?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
Especially now, that the Item has been in custody and could be studied and measured.

Why does it have to be studied and measured? We know what it is, part of the engine from Flight 77 so what would "measuring it, or studying it" actually show?

This is such the circular argument.

We 'know' what the Engines are because the very limited and damaged parts that were found suggest such, of which this hub is one.

So yeah, knowing what it is and it's actual size goes a long way to that determination.

I mean, how else do you know if not from the evidence... of which this hub is part of?

That's what I've asked you. You haven't shown me how it's inconclusively known... the best you could do was give me the exact same page that neutronflux gave. Which use the very part in question to try to 'prove' their stance.

You don't see the obvious flaw in such logic?

Nothing YOU have given me PROVES the Engine. Nothing. When I ask for proof, you are unable to provide any.

Despite a full analysis by the FBI. Which is a pretty big key. It means the evidence is out there. That object HAS been measured and identified. Where is the resource for that?

Why are we still using sites referencing the picture and using vague estimates?

Any help with that would be greatly appreciated.

originally posted by: neutronflux
I am pretty sure all parts of a jet planes are marked for identification and tracked in accordance with FAA regulations. I bet there are identifying marks on the disc that help indicate manufacturing data and use to record what specific engine it was placed in. I bet you will let me know if there is no tracking for the fan, compressor, turbine discs concerning manufacturing / assembly/ maintenance/ failure records.

I have no clue what they have tracking for.

I've laid out what I know plain as day. I know for a Fact the FBI has the object. I know the sites I was sent to cite the object as 'proof' of which Engine and thus which Plane. Which is the never ending circle we keep going around and round on.

I know no one has provided me an update to this, which verifies the sites and their 'estimates'. Though we should have that, a good 15 Years later.

A full Analysis was ordered by the Director of the FBI... so the information IS out there.

Where? And what was the conclusion?

We don't have it, which is why we are all here discussing the Article you and hellobruce linked. Instead of actual relevant data that's been verified.

That's what I find so ironic here, unverified speculation is being handed to me as 'proof'. Because it's on a website. Can we move beyond that already? That was old news in 2006, 5 years after the fact. And was no more conclusive then than it is today. Which is why the question is still being asked, because it's never actually been answered.

Which pretty much EVERYONE should be outraged by. Why don't we have this information? Where is the completed report?

Anyways, I'm tired of the circular arguments, it's getting tiresome.

I've put forth my question, and given the reason for my question.

The 'hub' is used to 'disprove' the JT8D. Except we can't verify the 'hub'. But we 'know' what the Engine is, so why would we verify. Except the FBI Director ordered an Analysis (that's why we'd verify).

I can't explain it any better. I really can't. That's as short and concise as I can make it.

originally posted by: KillerKell
I know for a Fact the FBI has the object.

Your source for that claim is what?

A full Analysis was ordered by the Director of the FBI...

Care to show exactly where and what he said?

Which pretty much EVERYONE should be outraged by. Why don't we have this information? Where is the completed report?

Please show where similar information has been given about any previous aircraft crash....

The 'hub' is used to 'disprove' the JT8D.

What are you babbling about now? Why would a JT8D have be on AA 757 Flight 77?

Except the FBI Director ordered an Analysis

Sure about that?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
I know for a Fact the FBI has the object.

Your source for that claim is what?

A full Analysis was ordered by the Director of the FBI...

Care to show exactly where and what he said?

Which pretty much EVERYONE should be outraged by. Why don't we have this information? Where is the completed report?

Please show where similar information has been given about any previous aircraft crash....

The 'hub' is used to 'disprove' the JT8D.

What are you babbling about now? Why would a JT8D have be on AA 757 Flight 77?

Except the FBI Director ordered an Analysis

Sure about that?

1. The FBI took all the items. What have they done... sold it on Ebay? I mean, that's a stupid ass question that you expected to be taken seriously? Did they lose it between the Pentagon and where ever they took it?

2. Do you read the Thread? Informer1958 on Page 14 of this Thread gives the quotes that prove the FBI Director ordered the Analysis.

3. I'm sorry... is 9/11 just an airplane crash? Or one of the following two: either the greatest Terrorist Attack on US Soil or the greatest Government Conspiracy.

I don't think it's just a 'plane crash'. Do you? Because you seriously asked that stupid #ing question. This isn't just a 'plane crash'.

4. Babbling? You do the circle yet again. You say it's the AA 757 Flight 77... it takes the evidence to prove that. Of which we are directly disputing what you've given me as 'evidence'.

5. Yes, I am sure about that. Again, the quotes are on Page 14.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
I know for a Fact the FBI has the object.

Your source for that claim is what?

A full Analysis was ordered by the Director of the FBI...

Care to show exactly where and what he said?

Which pretty much EVERYONE should be outraged by. Why don't we have this information? Where is the completed report?

Please show where similar information has been given about any previous aircraft crash....

The 'hub' is used to 'disprove' the JT8D.

What are you babbling about now? Why would a JT8D have be on AA 757 Flight 77?

Except the FBI Director ordered an Analysis

Sure about that?

1. The FBI took all the items. What have they done... sold it on Ebay? I mean, that's a stupid ass question that you expected to be taken seriously? Did they lose it between the Pentagon and where ever they took it?

2. Do you read the Thread? Informer1958 on Page 14 of this Thread gives the quotes that prove the FBI Director ordered the Analysis.

3. I'm sorry... is 9/11 just an airplane crash? Or one of the following two: either the greatest Terrorist Attack on US Soil or the greatest Government Conspiracy.

I don't think it's just a 'plane crash'. Do you? Because you seriously asked that stupid #ing question. This isn't just a 'plane crash'.

4. Babbling? You do the circle yet again. You say it's the AA 757 Flight 77... it takes the evidence to prove that. Of which we are directly disputing what you've given me as 'evidence'.

5. Yes, I am sure about that. Again, the quotes are on Page 14.

originally posted by: KillerKell
1. The FBI took all the items.

So they took every bit of Flight 77 found at the Pentagon?

2. Do you read the Thread? Informer1958 on Page 14 of this Thread gives the quotes that prove the FBI Director ordered the Analysis.

Care to show us exactly what the Director said? You also missed this bit....

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,

You say it's the AA 757 Flight 77... it takes the evidence to prove that.

Like the evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial, which he never questioned?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
1. The FBI took all the items.

So they took every bit of Flight 77 found at the Pentagon?

2. Do you read the Thread? Informer1958 on Page 14 of this Thread gives the quotes that prove the FBI Director ordered the Analysis.

Care to show us exactly what the Director said? You also missed this bit....

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,

You say it's the AA 757 Flight 77... it takes the evidence to prove that.

Like the evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial, which he never questioned?

1. Yes. That's what they do. Literally every single piece of wreckage was taken by the FBI. It's really SOP. Even is less profile cases. Do you seriously not realize this? Just how much silly # are you going to say?

2. Did you read his Post? We have an Assistant US Attorney who says 'records indicating the collection and positive identification or recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, were not located'.

So here is PROOF we collected and identified the wreckage... oh, but we can't find the actual RECORDS of that. That's all.

Then we have Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, the Chairman of the same board. They say that in 2002 they were directly asked by FBI Director Robert Mueller requested them to help with the Analysis... the Mueller ordered. The Director of the FBI.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you feigning ignorance? Are you trolling? You really question if the Director of the FBI orders an Analysis? It's his JOB. If he didn't, he should be fired for incompetence. He has no choice, it's a matter of National Security... of course he orders an analysis.

And you ask if the FBI takes the wreckage? Damn right they do. Every square inch of it. Do you know what they do at Quantico? Yes, they take every bit of the wreckage. Then they reconstruct it.

The only thing is... we can't get the records for this. Not just us... people in the Government asked for it. There was a SUMMONS, and the information wasn't brought forth.

Now the quote is that the identity of the plane was never in question. But that's completely false. NOTHING is certain until PROVEN in these situations. They rule out nothing until evidence rules it out. Period. There was an analysis, which is used to verify. If nothing is in question, what is one verifying?

So I ask again, do you even read what is posted? It is very clear by what Informer1958 posted that (1) FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered an Analysis, (2) some one falsely tried to claim it was never in question so no analysis was done and (3) despite the analysis we can't seem to locate the records, (4) even upon Summons.
-----------------------------------------------------
Moussaoui? Why would anyone question anything? We've got a Terrorist, on Trial. One that happened to enter no plea in the name of Allah, tried to fire his court appointed counsel, and a guy who said he had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HIJACKINGS.

So how would he know what Flight it was, or what it was at all?

Do you happen to know what a Scapegoat is? He was Al-Qaeda 100%. Openly admits that. But says he was not part of any plot involving hijacking planes and crashing into buildings. He changed plea to Guilty on 4 of 6 Counts. But he kept changing his story as well. His job was to Hijack a 747-400 to free Abdel-Rahman. Of course later it was him an Richard Reid, who he's never been connected to, hijacking a plane for the White House on 9/11.

The every changing story.

Yet this is part of your 'proof'? Seriously?

C'mon man, I'd like to think you're smarter than that. But you certainly aren't showing it.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
1. The FBI took all the items.

So they took every bit of Flight 77 found at the Pentagon?

2. Do you read the Thread? Informer1958 on Page 14 of this Thread gives the quotes that prove the FBI Director ordered the Analysis.

Care to show us exactly what the Director said? You also missed this bit....

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,

You say it's the AA 757 Flight 77... it takes the evidence to prove that.

Like the evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial, which he never questioned?

1. Yes. That's what they do. Literally every single piece of wreckage was taken by the FBI. It's really SOP. Even is less profile cases. Do you seriously not realize this? Just how much silly # are you going to say?

2. Did you read his Post? We have an Assistant US Attorney who says 'records indicating the collection and positive identification or recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, were not located'.

So here is PROOF we collected and identified the wreckage... oh, but we can't find the actual RECORDS of that. That's all.

Then we have Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, the Chairman of the same board. They say that in 2002 they were directly asked by FBI Director Robert Mueller requested them to help with the Analysis... the Mueller ordered. The Director of the FBI.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you feigning ignorance? Are you trolling? You really question if the Director of the FBI orders an Analysis? It's his JOB. If he didn't, he should be fired for incompetence. He has no choice, it's a matter of National Security... of course he orders an analysis.

And you ask if the FBI takes the wreckage? Damn right they do. Every square inch of it. Do you know what they do at Quantico? Yes, they take every bit of the wreckage. Then they reconstruct it.

The only thing is... we can't get the records for this. Not just us... people in the Government asked for it. There was a SUMMONS, and the information wasn't brought forth.

Now the quote is that the identity of the plane was never in question. But that's completely false. NOTHING is certain until PROVEN in these situations. They rule out nothing until evidence rules it out. Period. There was an analysis, which is used to verify. If nothing is in question, what is one verifying?

So I ask again, do you even read what is posted? It is very clear by what Informer1958 posted that (1) FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered an Analysis, (2) some one falsely tried to claim it was never in question so no analysis was done and (3) despite the analysis we can't seem to locate the records, (4) even upon Summons.
-----------------------------------------------------
Moussaoui? Why would anyone question anything? We've got a Terrorist, on Trial. One that happened to enter no plea in the name of Allah, tried to fire his court appointed counsel, and a guy who said he had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HIJACKINGS.

So how would he know what Flight it was, or what it was at all?

Do you happen to know what a Scapegoat is? He was Al-Qaeda 100%. Openly admits that. But says he was not part of any plot involving hijacking planes and crashing into buildings. He changed plea to Guilty on 4 of 6 Counts. But he kept changing his story as well. His job was to Hijack a 747-400 to free Abdel-Rahman. Of course later it was him an Richard Reid, who he's never been connected to, hijacking a plane for the White House on 9/11.

The every changing story.

Yet this is part of your 'proof'? Seriously?

C'mon man, I'd like to think you're smarter than that. But you certainly aren't showing it.