FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Matthew Lewis]

Jack,

In your 911 photo studies, chapter 28, here

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies75.htm

You say the engine was "small and light enough to deposit in a wire wastebasket".

Where do you get that info from? Every time I look at the photo you provided, it looks like the engine is in front of the wastebasket and larger than it. I would also doubt it to be very light.

Your study

Here is a bigger, clearer version of the image in your study. Unfortunately it is not cropped the same as yours but

It still doesn't appear to be in the wastebasket. Did you find some info elsewhere stating the size and weight?

And another from a different angle.

Note the carpenter's square placed on it to give a reference for size. Also note that it is not in a wastebasket but still in the same position as the picture in your study.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

"The accidental juxtaposition of elements within a photo composition generally should be avoided,

unless the object is to create a photo with a hand holding the Statue of Liberty."

The small size of the "jet engine" is adequately demonstrated by the Murray Street streetsign.

Thanks.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Still not small enough nor light enough to deposit in a wastebasket though. And still not in the wastebasket.

What would you estimate for the size of the street sign? Are you saying the engine is not large enough?

[Evan Burton]

Let's see who else they have on that list... Oh! Some "eyewitness experts".

Eyewitness Experts

Aldo Marquis

Craig Ranke

ThePentaCon

But wait!

It has been deemed necessary by the bulk of active admins of this forum that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke CIT are no longer welcome here.

The reasons for banning are as follows:

- repeated behavior and threads/posts aimed at only causing trouble

- ignoring of repeated warnings and suspensions

- starting irrelevant threads in the pentagon section, even after previous ones were removed

- unnecessary character assassination i.e. "stop seducing married women, Russ" or "go smoke another blunt, Dylan"

- threatening Dylan that they were going to "expose" him

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14734

Yep - they fit in well over at PFT.

[Len Colby]

There are 3 items in the photo that we can use as size references for the part:

1) The litter basket: The size of these ubiquitous NY items in inches is “24 diameter x 33 height” (61 x 84 cm) according to a company that sells them.

http://www.newyorkfirst.com/gifts/7090.html

As Matthew pointed out the part does seem to be quite a bit larger than the basket but due to perspective it’s hard to say for sure. It does seem to be at least 30 inches (75 cm) in diameter.

2) The street sign: According to a 1984 NY Times article “The city is replacing street signs in dark, hard-to-read locations with bigger signs.” The city’s Transportation Commissioner told the Times the new signs were “10 percent larger” than the old ones and ‘would be 18 inches high and 24 to 42 inches wide’. Thus the older signs were probably about 16 inches (40 cm) high.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A962948260

Again perspective makes it hard to be sure but the part appears to be about 4 times wider than the sign is high, this would make it about 60 inches (150 cm) in diameter if the street sign was 16 inches tall.

3) The carpenters square “Today's standard model measures twenty-four inches by sixteen inches [61 x 41 cm]. However, the flat square, rafter square, builder's square, and roofing square, other names by which this tool is known, are occasionally to be found in other sizes, including twelve by eight inches [30 x 20 cm] or twenty-four by eighteen inches [61 x 46cm].”

http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/The_C...ools-A2046.html

So the short edge is 8 – 18 inches (20 – 46 cm) long probably 16 since this the standard size and seems to conform to the probable size of the sign. The part seems to be about four times wide than it again making the part about 60 inches (150 cm) in diameter.

The size of the part is irrelevant since we don’t know what it’s “supposed to be” and what the size of the “real” part is. Obviously the engine was wade of smaller parts.

Matthew wrote: “Every time I look at the photo you provided, it looks like the engine is in front of the wastebasket and larger than it.”

Jack replied: "The accidental juxtaposition of elements within a photo composition generally should be avoided, unless the object is to create a photo with a hand holding the Statue of Liberty."

Jack:

Why can’t you unambiguously admit error? When are you going to correct the “study”

You described the WTC and Pentagon engines as being “extremely similar” but other than being big black and round they don’t look much alike. Why did you describe what obviously are parts are engines? Why do you think it odd that related model planes from the same manufacturer would have vaguely similar engine parts?

EDIT - Formated for clarity

Edited September 8, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I came back to correct my poat above since just by looking at the photos it seems obvious that the sign isn't 60" wide perhaps its 30 - 45 inches.

Whay are the backgrounds different? Jack asks. Perhaps because the photos were taken from different angles.

[Craig Lamson]

Clearly, the photos were taken at slightly different angles both vertical, and more so horizontal. However, the angle is not large and the lamp post should still be there. I'm sure it was moved - again - NOT suspicious in and of itself. But that would not be a light object, but two or three men could move it without too much effort. I'm no expert on engines and that is what we need. The central core [visible] is surrounded by more delicate compressor vanes in multiple rows..they would easily break-off or compress. I am not qualified to make a statement as to the size being sufficient, but a large aircraft engine is huge......3-4 times this in diameter, minimum. Any aircraft engine mechanics out there?

SLIGHTY DIFFERENT ANGLE? Looks like it could be 30 to 50 degrees which is WAY more than "slight". Why has the background changed? THE CAMERA MOVED!

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

The link below refers to the engine remains at the Pentagon, but the same basic conditions apply.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

To summarise:

Modern airliner engines are typically hi-bypass turbofan engines. Although the main "fan" at the front of the engine is quite large, the central core of the engine can be much smaller.

In a major aircraft accident, varying degrees of damage can occur to the engine, ranging from relatively little damage to near destruction.

It is not suspicious IMO.

[Evan Burton]

Backgrounds would also seem to match.

In the left-hand photo, look at the top-right corner of the image. See what appears to be a greyinsh object bordered by thick black?

Now go to the right-hand image. See in the background what I am assuming to be something like an advertising frame? At the very top of the image, from the centre to the right of the image? It is also bordered by thick black.

What we are seeing in the LH image is the bottom left hand corner of the same object, which is being obsured in the RH image.

[Craig Lamson]

Backgrounds would also seem to match.

In the left-hand photo, look at the top-right corner of the image. See what appears to be a greyinsh object bordered by thick black?

Now go to the right-hand image. See in the background what I am assuming to be something like an advertising frame? At the very top of the image, from the centre to the right of the image? It is also bordered by thick black.

What we are seeing in the LH image is the bottom left hand corner of the same object, which is being obsured in the RH image.

The missing light pole in the left hand image is in the very center of the frame, and the center of the wreckage...and cropped...at the top of the frame. Exactly where is should be considering the camera placement changes.

[Matthew Lewis]

most of the modern jet engines I've seen when including the compressor vanes and housing are then 3 to 4 times the diameter of the central core. While the diameter of the part in the picture is unknown, from the clues we do have a low estimate of 3 or more feet does not seem unreasonable. This would make the complete engine around 9-12 feet in diameter. This part in the pictures then seems to be large enough.

[Len Colby]

Short amateur video seems to cast EVEN MORE doubt on Flight 93 crash!!!!!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september...060907Video.htm

Replied to on the flt 93 thread where it belongs. Isn't 'changing the subject' one of the "25 ways to suppress the truth"?

[Len Colby]

From the “Debunk this” thread

Short amateur video seems to cast EVEN MORE doubt on Flight 93 crash!!!!!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september...060907Video.htm

The only thing in that video that wasn’t already covered in this thread is the claim that the imprint of flt. 93’s wings was really a strip mining scar that can be seen in satellite images taken in 1994. But the maker now admits that this wasn’t the case though he (or she) still claims without offering any supporting evidence that it “IS STILL A STRIP MINING SCAR”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

At best he or she can claim that wing imprint looks sort of like and could be a strip mining scar.

The maker showed his (or her) ignorance from the get go with these absurd comments:

“They say it was the intense heat from all that jet fuel that melted the core columns of BOTH towers causing catastrophic failure of 110 floors +basement.”

No these said intense heat from the burning of the combustible material in the towers caused the floor trusses to sag pulling in the core columns (already weakened by impacts and fire) causing them to fail. Gravity was responsible for the rest of the failure.

Then showing video footage of the crash site possibly taken hours afterward asked:

“Im [sic] no scientist but where’s that steel melting fire?”

No one said there was much of a fire at the site, dirt doesn’t burn.

EDIT typo

Edited September 9, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Jack White has asked me to post the following images and analysis which are his. I also enlarged the 'square' and found it to be metric and about 30cm [~12"] on its longest dimention.

I’d like to see the blow-up and know exactly how you determined the square “to be metric and about 30cm [~12"] on its longest dimention”. When I blew up the image it was too low resolution to determine much. It appears to use both metric and “imperial” units because the markings are not spaced equally on the edges. An entirely metric carpenter’s square would be an unusual item to find in NYC.

The advertising frame pointed out by Evan is from the side of a phone “booth”.

[Jack White]

Carpenter squares are made in two sizes.

16x24 inches and the less common 8x12 inches.

In the US, the common one is in inches, but there are some

with inches on one side and meters on the other side.

(from the internet)

The 16x24 one is also called a framing square and it the

most common one.

The one in the photo is unlike any I could find on the

internet. It is too small to be 16x24.

Jack