The Final Nail in the Coffin for the Church and Murray Engine and More Proof the Official 9/11 Story Is Very Wrong
A Boeing 767 engine is 94 inches in diameter AT MINIMUM. The engines actually can be up to 124 inches in diameter.
NIST actually tried to claim that the Church and Murray engine was in fact from a 767, with a diagram from their report:
Here, I have done simple measurements to show this engine fragment is CLEARLY FAR TOO SMALL TO BE FROM A 767:
Previously, I had calculated that the Church and Murray engine fragment is at most 32 inches wide.
Note, to be safe, I subtracted 10 inches from the 767 engine diameter of 94 inches, to account for the cowling-- giving the 84 inch figure.
Further, even if you assume the Church and Murray engine fragment above has had some outer casing torn off, this can't account for more than six inches of diameter-- leaving us still 12 inches too narrow.
So surprise, surprise -- NIST has lied.
More importantly, this proves, yet again, that the official 9/11 story is very wrong.
---------------------------
Final note, lots of people, such as Jon Carlson, have been claiming this engine is not from a 767 for a while. The problem I have had is that their "proof" always seemed difficult to discern, and Carlson in particular relied on the word of Karl Schwarz-- who simply is not a very reliable 9/11 source.
NIST actually tried to claim that the Church and Murray engine was in fact from a 767, with a diagram from their report:
Here, I have done simple measurements to show this engine fragment is CLEARLY FAR TOO SMALL TO BE FROM A 767:
Previously, I had calculated that the Church and Murray engine fragment is at most 32 inches wide.
Note, to be safe, I subtracted 10 inches from the 767 engine diameter of 94 inches, to account for the cowling-- giving the 84 inch figure.
Further, even if you assume the Church and Murray engine fragment above has had some outer casing torn off, this can't account for more than six inches of diameter-- leaving us still 12 inches too narrow.
So surprise, surprise -- NIST has lied.
More importantly, this proves, yet again, that the official 9/11 story is very wrong.
---------------------------
Final note, lots of people, such as Jon Carlson, have been claiming this engine is not from a 767 for a while. The problem I have had is that their "proof" always seemed difficult to discern, and Carlson in particular relied on the word of Karl Schwarz-- who simply is not a very reliable 9/11 source.
posted by spooked at 10:00 AM
8 Comments:
what are you talking about?
even a fucktard knows that when a lightweight brittle 767 engine impacts a massive steel/concrete structure it diminishes in diameter.
ha ha!
hey one doesn't even need to use science/mathematics to prove the official govt/media 9/11 fairytale wrong - all one needs is a tape-measure!
More aeronautical expertise from our resident "shove a handmade wooden plane into a chicken wire tower" scientist.
it seems that anonymous @ 8:09 does not have access to a simple tape measure.
This explanation leaves a lot of questions unanswered. First of all, what is the source of the original 767 engine and fragment comparison? What is the orientation of the actual UA175 engine - is that the back or front at the top? And what if it is the center (Mae West) portion of a 767 engine, which is clearly smaller in diameter than the rear of the engine. Maybe both the front fan and rear portions were broken off. We need to take this a bit further for it to be a smoking gun.
Here's some fact for you all. The engine has been confirmed as being a cfm-56 or a cf-6 which are from General Electric. United Airlines use stricky Pratt & Whitney. So whoevers job was to dump off that engine as a smoking, smoldering thing, DROPPED OFF THE WRONG ENGINE.
Use reasoning & logic. I used to work as an industrial painter with my father. In the course of my job we used a swing stage on tall buildings. The counter weights used on the beams were 75 pounds each. We would pack these up in the elevator, usually 15-20 per beam. Upon completion it was far easier to just drop them off the roof and collect them out the vacant dirt lot next to door. Well in my haste to finish I inadvertently miscalculated one and it hit a walkway and broke a hole in the concrete and buried in 6 inches. This is 75 pounds from about 150 feet. What do you think a 5000 pound engine would do to pavement after a 1000 foot free fall? City sidewalks are only less than a foot thick as pedestrians and any other use does not require it to sustain massive stress. Think about it, what would happen if you dropped a Chevy engine block off an overpass? Result? I leave that to you.
Use reasoning & logic. I used to work as an industrial painter with my father. In the course of my job we used a swing stage on tall buildings. The counter weights used on the beams were 75 pounds each. We would pack these up in the elevator, usually 15-20 per beam. Upon completion it was far easier to just drop them off the roof and collect them out the vacant dirt lot next to door. Well in my haste to finish I inadvertently miscalculated one and it hit a walkway and broke a hole in the concrete and buried in 6 inches. This is 75 pounds from about 150 feet. What do you think a 5000 pound engine would do to pavement after a 1000 foot free fall? City sidewalks are only less than a foot thick as pedestrians and any other use does not require it to sustain massive stress. Think about it, what would happen if you dropped a Chevy engine block off an overpass? Result? I leave that to you.
We need to take this a bit further for it to be a smoking gun.
หวยออนไลน์
royal1688
ทางเข้า maxbet
Post a Comment
<< Home