The Physical Evidence That Has Escaped Attention

" Popular Mechanics, while mentioning that an engine from the South Tower airliner landed in the street, neglected to show an engine photo, engine street location, and engine positive identification. Just by identifying undamaged parts from the damaged engine positive identification of the engine was made in the article: However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.

Shortly after the article was posted, a Boeing 767 airliner mechanic emailed that he concurred with the engine identification and that it was not from a Boeing 767.

Excerpts from his email:

I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67.


Take a look at the photo. This is physical evidence that must be addressed.

Thanks for posting this.

I need this type of info for my next blog.


I'm very sorry about your nephew. 

My nephew was a good guy.

My nephew was a good guy. His grandpa came from Brooklyn.

Gram pa died in late September and his wake was at a local dinner October 1st, 2001. It was the last time I saw my nephew alive.

Funny thing happened at the wake.

A woman, middle aged and a stranger to the family overheard conversation about my nephew working at the Twin Towers for Cantor Fitzgerald.

This stranger came over and asked about "who works at the World Trade Center?" She was directed to my nephew, and said point blank, "you know how dangerous it is to work at the World Trade Center? You shouldn't work there."

My nephew said he "was fully aware of the danger and had confidence in the security of the buildings."

The stranger persisted and continued to ask him not to work in the building.

He thanked her for her concern and said he was going to move to Florida in a month or two and begin a business of his own.

Ten days later my nephew was with his grand pa, as I flew into Mexico City that infamous day, 911.

not only is the engine on

not only is the engine on church st not from a 767, but perusing thru this site leads me to believe that the engine was planted there ahead of time
how did the engine get under that scaffolding? did the neighborhood shopkeepers run out with a dolly and wheel it under the scaffold?
and if the engine did indeed come from a plane that hit a tower and it's not a 767 engine, why do we see a supposed 767 in some of the video records?

not only is the engine on

You really think you saw a 767 hit the building?


Schwartz "moving away from financial corruption, he has turned his attention to the 9-11 truth movement, saying he has found a piece of obscure video footage that shows that the government lied about what type of plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

Schwarz admits he had a “whole lot” of luck when running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion.

Contained in the film unrelated to 9-11, is a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower.

“We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service,” said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. “We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.

“This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.”

Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.

“Not even two CFM56’s could get a 767 off the ground,” added Schwartz.

"Note in the photographs recovered from the video Deborah and I found the bottom of the plane is not painted in United Airlines fashion. The bottom of the jet is silver to light gray, not dark blue, not a medium blue gray."

From the photographs it is easy to determine within 3 feet of exactly where this photographer was standing. That is Point A. Remember to factor in for his height to determine the position of the camera as part of the base of a triangle.

2. From the photographs, maps and the physical location, it is possible to determine within a foot or so of the distance from Point A to the base of WTC II directly below the center of impact about 81 floors above. We have calculated it but the bashers can come up with their own figures for grading as to whether they pass or fail. I do not work for them nor do I answer to them. That determines Point B and the A-B base of the triangle.

3. From the photographs and government exhibits it is easy to calculate the height of the impact and determine the distance between Point B (base of WTC II) and the point of impact as Point C. Use the Center of the plane, center of impact to determine Point C. When you finish that you will have the B-C height of the triangle. The photographer is about 6 feet tall so that is the amount to deduct from the height (Point B to Point C).

4. Then calculate the A-C hypotenuse of the triangle to get the distance from the camera to the jet that hit WTC II.

Part 2 of this analysis requires that the students (bashers and trashers) assume that the position that the photographer is standing is the centerline of a 767 and orient the 767 outline to match the angle of approach to WTC II of the jet that actually hit the building. There would be with width of fuselage (to compare what was really in the sky) to consider and a total wing span of 156 feet and one inch. There are many more seats on a 767 so the fuselage is much wider than a 737 that has 6 seats and the aisle within its width. The width and length of the fuselage is just as important as the wingspan.

Think three dimensionally. You have a 767 outline at ground level and you want to compare it to what you see in the sky, factored for distance.

To conceptualize the preceding two paragraphs, on the ground from the center of the photographer’s stance there will be 78 feet and one-half inch wing span extending to the left (west) and right (east) of the photographer aligned with the plane you see in the sky. The photographer will be standing on the exact centerline of the fuselage, which is much wider than a 737. The 767 outline will be full scale at the level the photographer was standing and then distance factored for the exact distance to the jet in the sky. The hypotenuse is the distance to the impact point on the building but it can be adjusted to the South for each photo of the airplane.

AutoCad and TurboCad make this exercise much easier to get it accurate and right.

These folks have started off in the right direction but were looking at the wrong plane by assuming what they saw in CNN or other news network footage was what really hit. At least one of them came to the conclusion that Flight 175, a 767 from Boston Logan, did not hit the South Tower. It will not take that person long to pass this test.

The wing fairings are much larger and more pronounced on the 767 than the 737. That is simply due to it being a much larger plane and much greater wing span, greater wing area for lift, much heavier and more powerful engines, and even some differences in how and where the landing gear folds up. That is another hint in solving this problem.

It is a little more difficult, but the distance to the jet airplane and the actual angle of approach can be calculated. The distance to the airplane affects the apparent size so the wing tips on the ground have to be factored for distance to the object and adjusted for the angle of approach. It is a technique of perspective but when the three points of the triangle are known the vanishing / projection point for the perspective can be determined too. The point of view of the camera can be adjusted and known to provide a very accurate, adjusted for distance, overlay of the airplane you see in the sky.

The photographer was standing almost due south of the WTC North Tower so the differences in centerlines for each WTC building will be very close calculating the exact POV of the camera and the angle from the camera to the jet in the sky. Projecting from the tops of those buildings back to the center of the camera is possible on these photos. The photographer is standing just slightly to the left of being aligned perfectly with the west face of the north tower by several degrees. By that I mean, if you project a line towards the tip of Manhattan on the exact same line as the west side of the North Tower, the photographer was standing to the west of that line and not that far from it. The photographer was standing in the range of 6:31 to 6:34 south of the North Tower. If you treat this as a compass exercise, with North being “0” and South being “180”, he was standing in the 181 to 184 area and at a distance from the building that can be calculated.

The point of this exam is to overlay the 767 on that photo and see the results, factored for distance. Once this test has been completed anyone will see why I do not buy the Official Lie of what happened on 9-11.

Folks, this is the plane that hit the South Tower. This film was not under control of any government and two video labs have verified that it is the real thing. Submission of all calculations is required so those who fudge results will be exposed just as a word of caution...

I'm sure by comparing the dimensions of the crash hole in the building to the dimensions of a 737 and/or 767 the science of math can tell us without question what hit the South Tower.