9/11 - WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767 ???

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
www.rense.com...

What do you guys make of this?




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The engine can be that of a MOPED or a weed-eater and still, any sane, semi-smart human being should still know that planes did in FACT impact the WTC's on September 11, 2001.

Thousands witnessed the planes hit there...they saw it, millions saw it live on TV. Not to mention all the video recordings out there.

If someone actually did have legitimate proof of this they would sell to the highest bidder in the media today.......rense.com

[edit on 17/6/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I really can not see why people are so interested in what exactly hit the WTC's.. 2 planes did, and whether or not it was a 747 or 746 (No knowledge on planes), I really dont see the interesting part..



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Thousands of people died that day, does it really matter what engine was used?

If it was an insider job (which it very well could have been) it would make it much more interesting and if it was they would have whicked the engines off in minutes.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I can discredit that report with one word:

RENSE



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Rense does post some off stuff at times, but there is also a lot of truth too. At least he doing something. You can't go there thinking it is all factual, but it is not all fiction either.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
.
If the engine from the plane that hit the WTC isn't a 767 engine that means the official storyline is bogus.

And that would be the significance if it can be proven true.
.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   


If the engine from the plane that hit the WTC isn't a 767 engine that means the official storyline is bogus.


That is my point.
I can't believe most of you still think 9/11 was done by Arabs.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   


That is my point.
I can't believe most of you still think 9/11 was done by Arabs.


Well, I wouldn't go as far as to not say they were not arabs, they could "possibly" be arabs. I have doubts wether it was Al-Q that set it up..........they may have carried out the attacks but I doubt they planned it. Given the amount of evidence there is to show some of the men supposedly involved in this "terrorist attack" are alive and aren't even terrorists!


American Free Press

Questions About Real Identity of 9-11 Hijackers.

He sat silent for years, keeping a secret Americans were dying to hear. Not able to talk, there were days he cried uncontrollably, days he pounded his fists on the table like a madman, wondering if he could have prevented so many people from dying the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. For years, he tossed and turned, cursing himself for letting Mohammad Atta and Abdul-azziz Alomari, two of the alleged 19 hijackers, slip through his fingers at 5:40 a.m. on 9-11.

There’s an old saying that “a moment can change a lifetime.” And the moment that changed U.S. Airways ticket agent Michael Tuohey’s life was when he says he was face to face with the two purported hijackers, one being Atta, the man the federal government claims was the ringleader of
the entire operation.



BBC.co.uk

Hijack 'suspect' alive in Morocco

A Saudi-Arabian aircraft pilot who was named as one of five suspects on board one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre, has turned up alive and well in Morocco.

The man, Waleed Al-Shehri, has told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco at the time.

[...]

Mr Al-Shehri's case is not the first in which there has been apparent confusion as to the identities of the hijackers who commandeered the four planes on 11 September.



Insight

FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists

Nearly 48 hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the names of the hijackers flashed across TV screens for the world to see. Based on intelligence information gained from interviews, witnesses, flight-manifest logs and passports found at some of the crash debris sites, the FBI claimed it correctly had identified all 18 hijackers. A short time later the number was amended to 19. A few days later the names were followed with photos of the men blamed for the terrorism that claimed nearly 3,000 lives in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. Incredibly fast intelligence work - some of the information coming from the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Va. - enabled investigators to tie the attack to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

While there is no doubt the hijackings were the work of al-Qaeda, questions remain about whether some of the hijackers actually were the men the FBI identified. Last year that doubt crept into the highest levels of law enforcement after a series of sensational news reports aired by the BBC, ABC and CNN, along with several British newspapers, cast suspicion on whether the FBI got it right. The reports suggested at least six of the men the FBI claimed were hijackers on the planes were in fact alive. They didn't survive the crashes, of course, but never boarded the planes.


There is an awful lot of "truth" to 9/11 than we are led to believe. both post and prior.

Prison Planet 9/11 Archive

peace


[edit on 18/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   


That is my point.
I can't believe most of you still think 9/11 was done by Arabs.


So, of-course, from a controversial statement in an unreliable website relating to the exact type of engine recovered, you want to automatically exonerate Arabs from their responsibility relating to 9/11 regardless of all the evidence that point to the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by extremist Arabs/Muslims.
Very flimsy!



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I must admit that I have heard this mentioned before, but, as with SO much else surrounding 911, this seems to be a publically unverifiable fact...something for the unofficial conspiracy theorists to throw at the official conspiracy theorists, who will subsequently debunk it...then we can all go back to square one again.


I will offer 4/1 odds on 6 pages.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I love it. A typical Rense "article." It offers a lot of speculation and makes some wild claims without offering any real proof to back it up.




posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   


I love it. A typical Rense "article." It offers a lot of speculation and makes some wild claims without offering any real proof to back it up.


I must say you pretty much always seem to go along with the official government story, HOWEVER you are right...he does NOT provide strong evidence.

I think i may research this later...



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Lets put it to rest.

Part One
www.jeeigendomein.com...

Part Two
www.jeeigendomein.com...

Nice video.. almost 2 hours long.

If the bandwith is exceeded, wait a couple of days and it will be up again.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by blaqmyst]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
If the engine from the plane that hit the WTC isn't a 767 engine that means the official storyline is bogus.

And that would be the significance if it can be proven true.
.


It would appear that there is already enough circumstantial evidence to
believe that 9/11 is a hoax...and that is disturbing...very disturbing.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
From the NIST report


Several pieces of the aircraft passed all the way through the building and exited at high
velocities from the north side. Most of these were relatively small, but at least two were of
substantial size. One, a portion of one of the jet engines, exited the northeast corner of the
81st floor and landed roughly 1,500 ft from the north side of WTC 2. The other, a landing
gear assembly, exited in the vicinity of window 253 on the 81st floor and damaged the roof of
a building at 45 Park Place, over three blocks to the north. Assuming the exit locations were
identified correctly, the engine component exited the building moving towards the east at an
angle of roughly 17 degrees to the normal with the north face, while the corresponding angle
for the landing gear was approximately 12 degrees.



The report also has a picture that shows a large piece of debris exiting the tower after the impact.

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Millions of people WATCHED two 767s crash into the towers. It's very easy to identify them as 767s. There is nothing else out there that looks enough like a 767 to be confused with a 767, except a 767.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join