For Elf grinder 3000 debunked pentagon stuff [Archive]

TruthersLie

10th October 2009, 03:11 PM

In a different thread we have

Pentagon crash:

1. How did the plane that hit the pentagon disintegrate completely. The only thing that was found was skin from the plane and what they claim was the diffuser case from the tail of the claim.

what is left over from this jet hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph? Oh ... nothing.
RZjhxuhTmGk

Ok fine... the pentagon wasn't 12 foot thick concrete... But the idea is the same. A jet moving 500 mph hitting reinforced concrete, all that is left is the wing tips which don't hit it.

how about this example?
aSVfYwdGSsQ

That would be a piece of steel plate hitting an aluminum car at 600 mph... what was left over from the car? oh scrap, twisted and deformed, thrown all over the place.

what are jets made from?

and there was LOT more left over.. watch the following videos. (the key words you screwed up on is "the only thing that was found" is complete and utter bs btw)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2 about half way down the page and you can see lots of the wreckage...

2. Experts from Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce claim that the jet engine part "diffuser case" found in the pentagon was not from the plane that hit the building (a 757).

3. Why was there no mark from the jet engine impact on the sides of the Pentagon building.

Ready? Here you go
v4_eg5bq_E4

and

WXSJYRH5tt0

4. Why did the fbi confiscate the the security tape from the local hotel, the gas station and the parking lot of the pentagon. The only tape of the crash shows a image that can not be identified by the video.

There is a great site to read all about the "missing" 85 security tapes.. www.flight77.info Look them up

ElMondoHummus

10th October 2009, 07:51 PM

2. Experts from Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce claim that the jet engine part "diffuser case" found in the pentagon was not from the plane that hit the building (a 757).

This is a terrible misstatement of what was actually said.

Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_i.html) written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

My bolding above. Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

The misstatements are:

That Mr. Brown is an "expert", and by inference one on the engines used on the UA77 Boeing 757. No. He's a spokesperson for Allison engines. As the original source comes out and clearly notes he's "not an engineer or assembly line technician", so he might not even have been in a position to identify elements of engines his division does build. Regardless, it's clearly ridiculous to claim that he had the ability to speak definitively about an engine manufactured by a Rolls Royce division that was not even located in the United States, let alone his city of Indianapolis.
That Mr. Brown said the part was not from a 757. This is incorrect. What he said was "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy". Remember: The engines on UA77 was a Rolls Royce RB211. It was not the AE 3007H. In short, he said he did not recognize the part, and the context clearly establishes that he would not be in a position to make any such identification, since his division does not manufacture that engine!
That there were "experts", plural, i.e. multiple people associated with Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce who said this. No. That is a complete, total, and utter fabrication with absolutely zero justification for making. A single attempt to contact Pratt & Whitney resulted in a referral to a single individual for a Rolls Royce subsidiary. In other words, only one person associated with a Rolls Royce subsidiary ever said anything on the image that Bollyn was referring to, he never said what conspiracy peddlers claim (that the part was not from a 757) and as has already been established, he wouldn't have been in a position to definitively make that sort of claim to begin with.
This is more a nitpicky error than a deliberate misstatement, I admit, but: Chris Bollyn - the source for this conspiracy myth - tried to identify the compressor stage with Mr. Brown, not what Elf Grinder misnames the "diffuser case". As the Aerospaceweb.org link above notes, the part is more properly called the "combustion outer case" (although "diffuser" may be an informal term for it... I don't know). At any rate, a picture of this part posted, but the conspiracy peddling sites that post it merely claim it's not from the RB211; they do not appear to try to properly validate that claim (quoting Mr. Brown as validation is incorrect, as that was not the part he was shown). And on top of that, Aerospaceweb demonstrates why that's an incorrect claim, and that the image actually validates the fact that it was indeed an RB211. Anyway, in short, it's rather clear that no one other than conspiracy peddlers said that the so-called "diffuser case" was not from UA77.
QED.
--------

ETA:
I think it's instructive to note the claim inflation in the single sentence Elf Grinder wrote. This tends to happen with truthers. In this situation, a claim that a single individual did not recognize a single image of the part morphed into one that "experts" from two companies definitively stated that a part in question (or from some truthers other than Elf Grinder here, "parts", multiple) are clearly not from a757. This is exactly the fisherman's mythic "one that got away" process of inflating claims, but without the humor behind saying "the fish was this big". So oddly enough, the passage of time and the distortions inherent in passing information from one person to another has made these pieces of "evidence" that "contradict" "The Official Story" look like they're much firmer than they actually are.

Lesson: It always pays to check the original information that a truther claim is built on. In so many situations, you'll see that the original information does not support, and in many cases openly contradicts what the truthers attempt to claim. So much "truther evidence" ends up getting so exaggerated and distorted that the truthers eventually end up not even stating their own claims correctly, much less the reality of the event. Always try to go back to the original source. You'll see eventually just how intellectually bankrupt the conspiracy peddling movement is.