engine identified-CFM56

-Make7

• Jon Carlson, who has articles on rense.com - one titled: Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?
  
• an unidentified "Boeing 767 airliner mechanic"

-Make7

-Denial7

-Denial7

-Denial7

1. you have asked why Popular Mechanics didn't use a photo of the engine.
   
   
   
   • but you have not shown how omitting an engine photo weakens Popular Mechanic's argument that the plane had windows.
   
   
2. you have questioned whether or not Gene Corley was qualified to identify the airplane parts as belonging to a 767.
   
   
   
   • but, in the article, Gene Corley never identified the plane parts as being from a 767.
     
   • and you forgot to question the credibility of the persons identifying the engine as a CFM56.
   
   
3. you have wondered what mapping the trajectory of the parts of the plane has to do with proving the plane has windows.
   
   
   
   • do you really need to wonder why they explained how the person they were interviewing was involved in the investigation and what specific areas he had knowledge of? Really? You don't understand why they would point out that he was involved in researching the trajectory of the airplane parts? One of which was their entire case? Really?
     
   
   
4. you have suggested that Popular Mechanics forgot to ask Gene Corley about having to sign a waiver in order to get the blueprints for the WTC.
   
   
   
   • but you haven't explained how not asking about a waiver has anything to do with proving whether or not a plane has windows.
     

-Denial7

• why Popular Mechanics didn't use a photo of the engine in their article?
  
• whether Gene Corley was qualified to identify the airplane parts?
  
• what mapping the trajectory of those parts had to do with proving the airplane that stuck the South Tower had windows?
  
• why Popular Mechanics didn't print anything about Gene Corley having to sign a waiver in order to get the blueprints for the Twin Towers?
  

seatnineb posted:
...... because these firemen certainly think that the plane that flew over Brooklyn hit the south tower......

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, “It sounded like a freight train,” he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2. When he arrived on Liberty Street, “It was like a war zone when we got there. There were body parts all over the street.”

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426 .

Is this the plane they are refering to?

?pic

• In order to determine the size and position of the plane in the video, it would be beneficial to have a video clip (or even a still photograph) of the plane from a different angle. (This shouldn't be too difficult - as I recall there were quite a few cameras pointed at the Twin Towers at the time.)
  
• Perhaps in your search you could find a video that has a close up of that plane - that would be a good way to verify whether or not it has windows. It may not even be the plane that Mark Birnbach saw, it could be a third plane.
  
• We could determine how close the plane actually came to the Twin Towers if you could identify what kind of plane it is and where the person taking this video footage was located. This probably would also allow us to determine the speed of the plane.

Scared7

-Denial7

-Denial7

-Make7

-Make7

-Make7

"United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

http://rense.com/general64/prec.htm

-Make7

-Make7

Thanks,
Make7

The dimensions of the different models of the Boeing 737 that have been
produced are readily available on their website here:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/737.htm

Also, the dimensions of the different models of the 767 can be found here:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/767.htm

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6426&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
(His analysis is quoted in the post by dazinith at the top of the page.)

Wingspan:   112'7"
Stabilizer:  47'1"
Engines:     31'8"

The dimension for the distance between engines should be 52'. He used 51.5'.
He didn't transfer the measurement of the distance between the engines correctly from the picture.
The graphic says 56.1' - he wrote 58.1' in his chart.
Obviously this will change his percentage calculations. He should have gotten 92.7%.

"I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67." - Anonymous Mechanic

:) Make7