imo there are many many examples of evidence dis-prooving the official version of 9/11 put forth by the govt--but unfortunately many people refuse to acknowledge the many credible testimonies of eye witnesses,or the video demonstrating an implosion and verticle drop at free fall--it amazes me but some will even go as far as denying the absolutely ludicrous explanations concerning bldg 7 --people who cannot come face to face with these realities wont even consider the shiny red flags that consist of all the circumstantial evidence like bin laden passing up the chance to strike indian point not once but twice or silversteins horrible business decisions prior to 9/11 that could only make sense if he knew they would be targeted again--norad standing down,molten steel in the basements of 1,2 and 7 and i could go on and on but the point im making is that all this stuff can be covered-up,whitewashed or whatever term you want to use but the fact is the govt can spin propaganda well enough to keep the masses from investigating whole heartedly sufficiently suppressing their lies up to a point--but there is something that cannot be disputed and completely eviscerates the government version and that piece of evidence is known as the "MURRAY STREET ENGINE" that was documented on 9/11 in many ways--it did not shred to confetti and it did not vaporize and several clear images were taken of the engine in question--but one stands out as the definitve image as a clever investigator had placed a carpenters square on the engine for reference and it is this image that tells the truth about the official version and that truth is that it is a big stinking lie---remember the rotor fan on a 767 is 9 ft in diameter--there is no way that the engine pictured came from a 767!!!! the serial numbers from the many time change parts on this engine could end the debate for sure but the where abouts of this engine or the results of its investigation are unknown
********************************************************************
Somebody has placed a carpenter's square in the opening so the size is that of a CFM56. This is the definitive photo of the street engine.

In the Rense article, Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?,
the street engine was identified as a CFM56, the sole powerplant of the Boeing 737 after the 737-200 series. HOWEVER, UA175 that was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower was a Boeing 767-200.

In this screen capture from the CNN video of the South Tower crash the engine (circled) is seen as it heads for the intersection of Church and Murray. A flame can be seen following the descending engine.

Another engine part lying in the NYC street from the Naudet documentary:

I've heard about this before, here is a site with much more pictures and links:

The Rest Of The 911 Street Engine Story

Enjoy!

Pretty interesting topic though...

What did hit the towers then?

its all we know for sure--but it is enough to determine we are being lied to

Oh, so in additon to being a fire protection expert and a structural engineer you are also an aircraft expert!

Okay, Captain, how do you know what kind of engine that is? Do tell.



Jesus H Christ, someone please make it stop.

That was a pretty weak retort redneck. Cant explain it yourself I see. I think it is pretty damning myself as the pictures speak for themselves.

The two AirTrafficControllers had something interesting to say too.

How do you know what kind of engine that is?

so0o0o are you saying that when the world watched a plane go nnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrr into the WTC's that it wasnt a plane or not the plane we were told it was??
Im confused

They don't know. Just like they don't know what kind of engine that really is up there. They "know" because some yahoo with a web page told them.

oh right cool thanks

well the physical evidence is being suppressed but fortunately the pictures are more than enough to verify the type of engine--even though it would be much more desirable to have the serial numbers so that we could verify the exact plane it came from--here are a couple of examples demonstrating the difference between the 737 turbine and the one used to power a 767---
********************************************************************
here are a few pics of the murray street engine with people nearby offering a point of reference to compare the differences in size--



*********************************************************************
now here are a couple of different views of the turbine used in a 767

^ So.... You can see and prove the difference? It is just an idea thrown out there... interesting... but still an idea. That engine looks pretty beat to hell for anybody just to glance at it and say "nope.".

You realize that if you're comparing the size based on the size of the turbine fan blades that those are much bigger in diameter than the rest of the engine for most types of engines? They need to be bigger to draw in more air and compress it.

Look at the difference in size from the fan blades to the rest of the engine on the CFM56, the same engine you're talking about.
http://www.cfm56.com/engines/cfm56-3/index.html
The pictures of the engine in the street don't appear to have any fan blades attached and could be from an internal engine part. Simply put comparing the size based on the fan blade size is highly inaccurate.

Now here is a picture of the type of engine used on a 767
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/cf6-80c2.html
Sorry the pic is small. Notice the huge difference in size between the fan blades and the rest of the engine. In fact the rest of the engine is more similar to the size of the cone in the center of the fan blades.

Now can you definitively say the engine on Murray St. is not from a 767? It looks to me like it could be from the heavier, more sturdy internal compressor area of an engine and therefore smaller than the fan diameter.

are you insinuating that the engine pictured is visually unidentifyable? your profile specifies an airforce base--wouldnt it be easy enough for you to ask a mechanic if he would be able to visually recognize a turbine he works on and is familiar with? im not jet mechanic nor am i an auto mechanic but i can sure as hell distinguish between a chevy 350 and an oldsmobile or ford small block--to insinuate that the turbine pictured is visually unidentifyable for someone familiar in the craft is ludicrous and a testament to the hurdles and obstacles that those in denial will jump just to spare their conscience from having come face to face with a reality that is paradigm changing--the engine has been visually identified and the burdon of discrediting the analyzation lies with those in possession of the engine

No what I am saying is everybody is talking about the size of the engine and how it is too small to be the correct engine. They then compare it to the large fan blades on the front of the engine completely ignoring the much smaller engine behind. From the pictures I found, the size looks right.

in other words, "hey! it looks like an engine, so it must be one!"

not very technical, there. why don't we get someone with airplane knowledge to say that that's an engine?

i know nothing about engines of any sort but what i do know after a crash as substantial as a an airplane hitting a building at anything up to 500mph will change the look of anything and probably smash things off it so to compare the size to a spanking new engine seems a bit silly. oh and what about the video footage showing the plane smashing into the building now wouldn't it be easy to tell what kind of plane it is from these pictures rather than a battered engine. and i know somebody will say there are eyewitness statements from people saying it wasn't a 767 crashing it was something else, now there probably are but i bet for every statement saying it was something else i bet theres a hundred statements saying it was a 767 they saw

Frenat beat me to it. This post truly plumbs new depths of stupidity.



This has got to be the most idiotic thing you've written here yet. There's no FAN on that engine, is there?

As the old saying goes, it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

And from the picture I posted, you can see the main part of the engine is 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter of the fan blades which puts it in the size range of the engine pictured on Murray St.

its completely identifiable--and the difference is measurable--fan blades or no fan blades--what are you goiong to say when i post images of a cfm56 rotor shaft and compare to the murray street engine and then show an image of the shaft within a cf6-80c2 or pw4000--how will you dismiss it then? will you concede to the fact that the official story is a big lie? im just curious as im not sure its worth the work as you are failing to see the big picture anyway--remember the carpenters square--it is measurable

This is hilarious. You're like a train wreck, dude. Post your precious picture, man! Go ahead! You've got nothing to lose; your credibility can't possibly get any worse!

They do have a point Red.

Okay...I went to this site looking for engine comparisons and I think the guy does a pretty good job of doing all the legwork by aquiring these different pictures.

Interesting also to read the discourses between the different users.


Website Link Here

While it is an interesting discussion, did you read it? They are arguing about the engine parts at the Pentagon and not the Murray St. part.

Concerning the Pentagon, this page
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
does a good job of showing that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and suggests that the engine part in question there may be from the APU. Maybe that's why they are having trouble IDing it on that forum.

Remote controlled I might add

Yes they did talk about the Pentagon crash but my intention was for people to see the pictures of the engines and the differences between 767's and 737's etc...which would relate to our topic here.