It's not a 'United Airlines' Boeing 767 engine.

BT, with respect, this will be my last post about 'no planes' because I don't feel it a worthy topic for further discussion or my time tbh.
Dr Wood does suggest no planes... yep. She suggests DEW.... yep. Absolutely everything I've seen about no planes has been discredited, and there are plenty of resources on the internet that take it apart assertion by assertion.
Not everything I've seen about the DEW theory has been discredited, although I think this method quite unlikely, but that's just my feelings on it rather than being able to state it as fact.
John Lears & Pilots for 9/11 truth's assertions that the speeds achieved were impossible have been proven to be wrong by demonstrations in flight simulations. The simulations were undertaken with the sole intention to prove whether or not such manoeuvres at that speed and altitude were possible in that aircraft, and they were. That doesn't mean however that unskilled pilots were able to achieve it, which I find most unlikely - almost akin to driving a car into a space the size of a garage at 560mph without having passed your test.

One piece of evidence that I've not seen discredited is one of the recovered FDRs (can't remember which one) which showed that the flight deck door had not been opened during the flight, making the hijack impossible. It's possible it has been, but I've not seen it.

I really think the 'no planes' theory has developed a very divisive feeling amongst people seeking the truth about 9/11 & is now providing an unnecessary distraction. If anything, I think it more important to seek out those responsible for 9/11 & bring them to justice rather than arguing the toss over whether it was done by cartoons or not.

You are obviously welcome to your opinion on it but I urge you to dig deeper about NPT.

Space Bandit wrote:
Thanks again for your post spacebandit, just to clarify I'm not suggesting 'No planes' I'm suggesting no Boeings.

I'm not suggesting the whole thing is CGI or hologram, only that the holograms/CGI were alterations of drones.

I think you might be right about what you say about John Lear, however I think he is correct when he says that 'it can't be done'
But in regards to pilot skill not to Boeing limitations
BTW I've too posted everything that I have to say on the matter.
Finally when you say Absolutely everything I've seen about no planes has been discredited that relates to 'no planes'.

What I'm proposing and other 'no planers' propose is that it's not 'no planes' but 'no Boeings'.

So I hope someday the NPT will be changed to TBT, substituting the P for plane for the B for Boeings.

We now know that the engine found on Murray St was planted because it's not a 'United Airlines' Boeing 767 engine, and that has not been debunked.

Actually I thought pilots for 9/11 truth had been through the thing about the engine parts & came to the conclusion that it was from a 767, and that it was the correct engine for that plane's serial number. I might be getting that confused with the Pentagon one though. They certainly went through the details & came to that conclusion for one of the attacks.
The flight simulations do show that it is possible for that airframe to achieve the attack in the manner we all witnessed however. Whether the planes were switched, modified in some way, remote controlled etc are certainly possibilities.

Did you see the video clip about the engine that I posted on post 523# it appears to verify what John Lear has already stated on the matter.

That 'United Airlines' don't have that particular engine on their Boeings.
Other airlines may do and that has been a technical error by whoever put it there.

It's also been shown that there is no data available for the said Boeings with regards to flight history since December 2000, 9 months prior to 9/11, the planes have been said to have been noted by 'plane spotters' who have recorded the numbers off of the tails, however the official recordings are 9 months since last flight for three of the Boeings and no data at all for the forth.

Enough people seem to agree that the Islamic kamikaze hijackers is not the true story, for some reason, if so who is flying the planes?

edit in bold font

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I'll have a look in to that tomorrow cheers BT.
Yes I do remember now about the lack of details for the plane's activity, I'd forgotten about that. That's piqued my interest again so I'll have another rummage about that too.
Maybe by the end of this we could come up with a definitive list of stuff that hasn't been discounted, I think that would be really useful.... in some way. At least anybody disputing stuff about 9/11 could then be pointed to any remaining facts.
I strongly suspect remote control for the planes due to their target accuracy & the alleged hijackers lack of piloting skills but it's just speculation & as such isn't very useful.