That wasn't a claim, it was a question... one that you dance around intentionally...
The original one was, and this whole thing relates to that.
The point being that it was CLAIMED that the government made an OFFICIAL statement to the effect that the engine found from Flight 175 was not what was actually found.
That "claim" (
coming AFTER the mssile and intercept ones) has
not been substanciated, therefore this whine of yours is moot !!!
Which all comes down to WHY should we address
for you, any claim that has NOT been shown as true ... why should we need address a negative.
There is no "dancing" around on our part, a gratuitous and unwarranted comment on your part in that you seem to have
no issue with the OP "dancing" around answering his first direct claims of intercepts and missiles.
Rather ironic that you call us to task, and yet have no such truck with your departed ally doing the very same thing !!!
So, no ... I'm not dancing B'man, I want the claim of it
being an official government statement either verified or retracted.
This was NOT "my" claim, but someone elses, why should I address something that the very basics of have not been shown.
Such double standards in play that you find this dancing around on my part, yet your new-found friends repeated avoidence not ... and even funnier when you realise that you will fail to see it !!!
Hell, I know nothing of the difference of the two engines, and I was hoping someone as smart as yourself wouldn't turn tail and run from such a question with so much ferocity.
I'm not "running" B'man, just asking for the basics of the claim to be either substanciated or retracted.
Why is that so difficult to see ???
Anyway, nothing stopping you,
again, from contacting those considered proper authorities and finding out.
Why would you "trust" some anonymous self-proclaimed poster in a forum ???
What faith leads you to "think" some unknown entity would be the right person to believe anyway ???
Why do you have such issue with legitimate authorities, for what possible motive or benefit would either Boeing or Pratt & Whitney need lie to you ???
Building up ENTIRE strawman posts nearly a full thread page long ALL just so that you can go without addressing the question.
No strawman in wanting a DIRECT claim backed up !!!
Or is there ???
What kind of engine was found ???
The one from Flight 175 !!!
How did you come to that conclusion?
Because that is the kind of engines used !!!
Very simple, even a child with the right information could answer it... or you could admit you don't know, there's no real shame in not knowing something this technical...
B'man, like you I do not have the technical knowledge to know by sight alone, so rely on those considered real experts whose judgement I trust or find credible.
Quite simply, it is beyond idiocy to think that this is so easy to spot that complete no-bodies on the internet found it out, but actual manufacturers, companies and pilots and engineers from any nation on this planet failed to spot it.
Just what
are the chances that not one single legitimate authority anyplace on this entire globe saw it ... but self-proclaimed ones on forums did ???
Besides what is gained by "switching" engines, it serves no real purpose, and considering that truthy types (
being so smart and all) could find it out by looking at a few grainy pictures, yet missed by real technical experts, is just ANOTHER layer of overly complex issues to add to an already overly complex and convoluted conspiracy, and one too easy to spot ... apparently !!!
Just how
many moving part does this one have ... how many will you keep faith in before you realise just how unworkable and unwieldy this is ???
I'm not an aircraft engine specialist ... but I see no logical or realistic reason for it not to be just what it was ... the engine FROM Flight 175.
But obviously since your making such a to-do about my lack of technical knowledge perhaps you could share your "inferred" one then !!!
(as a side note, I just wanted to point out from our previous debates the difference between myself when I KNOW what I"m talking about versus NOT knowing what I"m talking about, like now)
Well, you seem NOT to "know" that there are no missiles at the Pentagon, or that the OP was not what he claimed, so this perhaps should be taken with the requisite dose of salts !!!
Ok, I don't care about how many ways you can slander this PW guy, or myself, and honestly, I don't see how a straight answer is so difficult... it definitely projects the dishonesty of some in this debate.
Where is the slander B'man ... he was not a pilot, never had been, there were too many faulty claims for him to be real,, how is that slanderous ???
But considering that the failure to answer straight questions
originated with your short-lived ally ... perhaps you can see the ultimate irony in you making such a song-and-dance about us not addressing his UNSUPPORTED claim of an official claim of a different engine.
Or maybe not !!!
) after your group number. Thank you. If we spot a shift in your beliefs, then that shift, that makes it easier for people to say: "Hey, John. I see you went from Group 1 to Group 5 in less than 3 days! What the heck happened, guy?
