| Viewing Single Post From: Flight 77 Engines | |
|---|---|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 10:31 PM |
|
So where does it say that flight 77 would have had Pratt & Whitney engines? Aldo seems to think they would have been 535s and another poster (a moderator) identifies the engines as being Rolls Royces from a photo of "the actual aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon".
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It is almost certainly an error. And this forum you pointed me to only confirms that. It's just a shame that the photo of "the actual aircraft" is now missing or we would have even more evidence. In 1992 the 757s belonging to American Airlines had the same type of engines they have now. It would have taken something very unusual indeed for flight 77 to have had anything but Rolls Royce RB211 535s on 9/11/2001. And there is certainly no evidence to suggest any such unusual occurence. No reason whatsoever to think it had Pratt & Whitneys. Perhaps if Dylan had read that thread carefully the error could have been omitted. Would one more person suggesting that the engines were Rollers have really made a difference? I imagine that somewhere along the line Dylan has heard that Pratt & Whitney make engines for the 757 and has jumped to conclusions. I'm not trying to criticise him for this mistake. I am simple trying to help him rectify it. It is not too late.
Thanks for the homework. I read it all. Some of it twice. Most of it has no relevance. In fact I can't find any comments regarding the supposed vaporization of a 757 and it's engines (regardless of the type). It seems to relate more to the A3 / wreckage photos question, which is really a seperate matter. It also contains numerous errors, oversights and grasping at straws (I will come back to these). So basically I'm wondering what the point was. What was I meant to learn from this reading exercise? Am I missing something? |
 |
|
| Flight 77 Engines · American Flight 77 | |
10:09 AM Nov 25
