Shanksville engine planted by a backhoe bucket? (theory), page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:10 PM by nick7261

Originally posted by esdad71

We could also call the guy who operated and maintained the machinery in the picture.

link

It crashed 3 miles from his house. I think this disproves the theory.

In the spirit of fairness and accuracy, I think it's misleading to state as fact that you know who operated the machinery shown in the picture posted by Killtown. And certainly because a resident states that he thinks the passengers were heroes doesn't disprove Killtown's theory about the engine photo being staged. In fact, one must question how this resident would *know* that the passengers were heroes? It sounds to me like this is more evidence of the government wanting to spread the hero story for PR reasons.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:15 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by esdad71Why would the US government wait till 9/11 and then use an excavator to drop an engine into a hole?

That photo was taken AFTER 9/11.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:15 PM by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71
Chuck Wagner,

Does anyone have a picture of him? The name sounds familiar. I have worked with plenty of excavators in the Pittsburgh area when I was a geotechnical engineer practicing there. Just curious.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:21 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by zerotimeI will agree with others that this post is boardline hoax. If we are to the point were a poster can make up anything they want...

What makes you think my thread is a "hoax"? What did I "make up"?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:27 PM by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Killtown
Wow, what a firestorm I cause with this!

Because you defy logic and common sense. Your theories and actions are nothing more than selfish tactics in an escalating turf-war of attention by competing "9/11 conspiracy" groups.

The typical insults being hurled at me by members and even a mod insulting me and threatening to ban me over this!

I'm unable to find where you have been insulted? However, certainly you anticipate that your turf-war tactics will solicit angry responses. This seems part of your tactics so that you can happily proclaim your expurgation on various safe-haven blogs and boards.

I've must of hit the nail on the head about that engine being planted with the backhoe bucket!

I'm confused as to how any fair-minded or truth-seeking person would assume that indignant responses to their theories would translate to a feeling of self-importance and righteousness. Unless, of course, the outraged reactions are precisely what you're looking for.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:37 PM by Fowl Play

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by zerotimeI will agree with others that this post is boardline hoax. If we are to the point were a poster can make up anything they want...

What makes you think my thread is a "hoax"? What did I "make up"?

You have posted fake imagery, used a misleading title, not provided any evidence, if you have or conspired in the hoax, you deserve not only banning, but arresting as well, it is treasonous and disrespectful and you have absolutely no evidence apart from fabricated images and hoplessly misinformed speculation of the saddest kind...
Do you like posting lies on here and posting about the reaction to it on other sites and Blogs to try and big yourself up? or trying to get yourself banned , so you look like you are getting somewhere, i see you have even been banned on Avery's site... wow, that must take something... you proudly wear that banning like a medal on your blog, do u want one from here as well, so you can show off your bannings of honour?.. your no planes BS will be the undoing of you, that is if there is anything??
You are discracefully using ATS to enhance your profile and that of your equally shady mates..
I hope you sell nothing of whatever you are thinking about releasing, or are you just a wannabee Killtown..
You seem to be pushing too far, you should be careful.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:53 PM by Sparky63

Originally posted by nick7261

Second, look at the engine itself and the lack of dirt around it. The photo seems to imply that the scoop of the excavator uncovered the engine. However, there's no way an excavator scoop like the one shown in the photo would have been able to carefully dig out the dirt above and around the engine.

Fourth, look at the angle of the engine. FL 93 is said to have hit at a 45 degree angle, but the engine appears nearly vertical. I don't see how the engine could NOT have been wedged at the same 45 degree angle that the plane hit. In fact, the damage to the engine seems to be from a force along the axis of the engine, not at a 45 degree angle.

It seems to me that the engine in the photo was put there for the photo. Whether or not it was excavated further down and then placed there, I don't know. But I think Killtown raises legitimate questions about the photo.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by nick7261]

There are far too many variables in a catasrophic crash like this to make any kind of judgement as to what angle the demolished engine should be oriented in. There is no way anyone can make the determination that the engine was not moved around by the escavator-backhoe.

I can easily imagine the operator getting the edge of the bucket under the engine and prying it out of the dirt, leaving it in the hole so photos could be taken. There is no reason to assume that the picture is intended to show the engines precise orientation prior to it being moved or shifted by the bucket.

Is there a timestamp on this pic or any way to determine when it was taken in relation to its discovery in the hole? If there is please share it with us. How do we know that investigators did not move it around for the purpose of getting as clear a picture as possible. Just too many variables in my opinion to make any assertions of a coverup based on this photo.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 02:58 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by thelibra
Killtown, in the future, please refrain from just making things up

What things have I "made up"?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:02 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by Sparky63Is there a timestamp on this pic or any way to determine when it was taken in relation to its discovery in the hole?

The hazmatters didn't start excavating the crater until 9/13 when they claimed to have found the FDR.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:16 PM by thelibra

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I hope you sell nothing of whatever you are thinking about releasing, or are you just a wannabee Killtown..

Good lord, people, I JUST posted a thread on not insulting one another. This is not helping, Fowl Play. Just because I've had to call someone out on a TAC violation does not give everyone else free license to hurl insults at them.

NO ONE is above the TAC.

EVERYONE is to be held to the same standard of conduct on ATS.

Originally posted by Killtown
What things have I "made up"?

The entire OP is speculation, and was presented as fact. The original title of the thread was " Shanksville engine planted by a backhoe bucket!!". This is why I changed the title to reflect it as theory, and is the reason for the comment I made.

The skating on thin ice comment was in regards to your previous behaviour here.

As I have repeatedly said, your views on 9/11 are welcome at ATS, but you will observe the same basic rules that apply to everyone else. Sometimes, when you screw up, you're going to get called out on it and asked to correct your behavior. You need to learn to accept that if you ever hope to find acceptance in a new community. That's not just in regards to ATS, that's life in general.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:28 PM by Leyla

Ok guys take a step back and take a good look. From 9-11 All I saw of flight 93 was a hole. But after seeing the two buildings collapse- perhaps I was in a state of numbness for the rest of the day.

The only thing I can think of of what happened to flight 93 that when it crashed was buried complety into the earth. Dosen't mean that I'm right.
We may never know the complete truth behind 9-11. But when people are discussing theories- they might not be right but just hear them out. So take a deep breath because getting mad at a ATS member because of a theory isn't gonna bring those 3000+ people back.

So lets play nice ok?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:32 PM by esdad71

This is the original image.

Here is some debris

so it shows us that everything was not vaporized, but a large part of it was. Remember also this was not a full flight. If there had been a few hundred on board it would have been more horrific on the scene.

and look at this picture and you can put a plane in the charred area, can we not?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:36 PM by Unit541

Why would a back hoe be needed to toss some engine scrap in a hole? Seems to me you could just shove it in and get the same effect.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:48 PM by nick7261

Originally posted by esdad71

and look at this picture and you can put a plane in the charred area, can we not?

The plane wasn't alleged to be in the charred area in this last photo you referenced. The plane was alleged to be buried beneath the smaller plane-shaped outline north of the charred area. This is another interesting phyical oddity. There is no area adjacent to the location of the area that is charred. In fact, photos show the grass 6 inches from the crater to be completely uncharred. Intuitively, I find it odd that a plane crash that would char a section of trees south of the crash site would fail to char the grass 6 inches from the crash site.

In fact, I also find it hard to explain how the jet fuel, traveling at 400+ mph, could not continue it's forward momentum and spray the entire area around the crater as it ignited. I.e., there seems to me there should be some continuity between the crash crater, which is not charred, and the trees, which were charred. How did the explosion jump over the grass between the crater and the trees?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 03:58 PM by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71

This is the original image.

To me it looks like they excavated the engine out of a deeper hole to the right (where you can't see) and then placed it there (closer to the top) for a photo op. Or is the official story that they excavated around it and didn't move it until after the photo?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 04:02 PM by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by esdad71

This is the original image.

Okay? at what depth was it excavated from? That implicated in the photo[op] or from a greater depth, and this photo is simply the result of it being "brought to the surface". The answer? Anyone?

If this is truly one of the engines, then I would have to suspect it had been "dug up" from a Much deeper location ... especially considering the "guts" of said engine consisted of some of the more Dense and Impervious [to damage] metals. (?)

Aside from the possibility that This photo was simply to document "evidence", WHY does it appear to be from the area of impact of the fuselage? Why not from the area of impact associated with the wings ... where one would expect it to be?

Personally, I've always felt that this was Actually a photo of the APU remnants, if only based on the proximity and "apparent" depth depicted in the photo. Then again, I'm open to further suggestions and or opinions.

As for the OP's claims .. to each their own, I guess.

.. when it comes to conspiracies the line between Fact and Fiction can often be quite Fine.

just sayin' ...

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 04:14 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by Unit541
Why would a back hoe be needed to toss some engine scrap in a hole? Seems to me you could just shove it in and get the same effect.

Because that engine pieces is heavy and the can conceal the engine scrap in the scooper as they lower it down for their photo-op.

I would be pretty obvious if 6-8 hazmatters were trying to roll that engine scrap into the crater.

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 04:16 PM by Killtown

Originally posted by GriffTo me it looks like they excavated the engine out of a deeper hole to the right (where you can't see) and then placed it there (closer to the top) for a photo op. Or is the official story that they excavated around it and didn't move it until after the photo?

So they dug up the engine that was deeper in the crater, hoisted it up with the scooper, then dropped it back in the crater only 2 ft below the surface, backed the scooper away from it, brushed all the embedded dirt off of it, took a picture, then scooped it back up with the scooper and took it out?

Is that really what you think they did?

reply posted on 13-6-2007 @ 05:02 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

As far as theories go......I don't see how this is off base at all.

But like many things KT asserts....it will be forever written off as speculation and will therefore ultimately do nothing to expose the 9/11 lie.

What really trips me out from a speculation stand-point is how the plane completely disintegrated into soft reclaimed dirt once again leaving virtually no recognizable pieces but a completely intact, clean, starched "hijacker" red bandanna was recovered without a single burn mark!