Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+17 more 
posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Since Reheat believes I'm derailing another thread, I'll do the mods and him a
favour by creating this topic.

Mr. Reheat, do you believe that a 757/767 bore itself 165 feet into the ground
as per photo linked in the other thread?

Do you also believe that digging 4 feet below the surface would reveal only
part of an engine, and not a tail section, fuselage, seats, wings, etc.?

Thank you again for your expert analysis!




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The official trial photo in question with the rusty old rotor buried just inches below ground level and in a very suspicious posed and staged looking setting.



Larger photo of rusty old engine rotor allegedly found buried at Shanksville

No sign of any other aircraft parts in the excavated hole with the rusty old rotor. Where is the 90 ton Boeing 757? There is also no sign of footprints from workers removing the alleged aircraft debris in the soft excavated soil. Why is that? Is that because there was no aircraft debris; just a few 'rusty old parts' brought in for 'photo ops'?

Allegedly a 90 ton Boeing 757 was buried here

And we are supposed to believe the fable that one black box was found buried 15 feet deep in this soft soil hole, and the other black box was buried 25 feet deep, when originally both black boxes would be sitting next to each other in the tail section?

Good one guys. Even the 9-11 perps have a sense of humor.


The alleged official crash scene and hole in the ground of Flight 93

And yet the aircraft was reported miles past here over Indian Lake, minutes after the alleged crash in this mining strip? What kind of fools would believe the nonsensical government lies?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Do you also believe that digging 4 feet below the surface would reveal only
part of an engine, and not a tail section, fuselage, seats, wings, etc.?

Thank you again for your expert analysis!


With the difference in a) construction materials, b) manufacturing process and c) intended use, I would agree that parts of an engine would survive that sort of crash and a "tail section, fuselage, seats, wings" would not.

I would assume, based on your question, that you believe a airline seat is made of the same material as a airline engine and as such should have survived. You must not be too familiar with aircraft, so I can assure you they are made of far, far different material and one would indeed survive (to a degree - "survive" is a relative term) a crash where the other would be obliterated, as would the support structures of an aircraft - the tail section, fuselage, wings, etc. The latter are relatively lightly-constructed structures, optimized for pressurized air travel, not needing the strength and robust manufacturing requirements of a GE or RR airline engine.

Glad to be of help



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Do you also believe that digging 4 feet below the surface would reveal only
part of an engine, and not a tail section, fuselage, seats, wings, etc.?

Thank you again for your expert analysis!


With the difference in a) construction materials, b) manufacturing process and c) intended use, I would agree that parts of an engine would survive that sort of crash and a "tail section, fuselage, seats, wings" would not.

I would assume, based on your question, that you believe a airline seat is made of the same material as a airline engine and as such should have survived. You must not be too familiar with aircraft, so I can assure you they are made of far, far different material and one would indeed survive (to a degree - "survive" is a relative term) a crash where the other would be obliterated, as would the support structures of an aircraft - the tail section, fuselage, wings, etc. The latter are relatively lightly-constructed structures, optimized for pressurized air travel, not needing the strength and robust manufacturing requirements of a GE or RR airline engine.



So where are the shattered pieces? Shouldn't there be pieces of your seats? What do you mean obliterated? Did they turn to 'fairy dust'? Why are there no shattered pieces of aircraft aluminum in the soft dirt mining strip? There should be 90 tons +/- of aircraft aluminum in that scooped out hole. I do not even see one single piece. Do you?

Don't you think it odd that the once 6 ton alleged turbofan engine is now exactly the right size to fit in that bucket? It looks like it arrived in that bucket, got nudged over to the side imperfectly into the soft dirt, and photo op time. No footprints please.

And why is the engine already all rusty? All the turbine rotors I have seen were really shiny. Of course I have never visited an aircraft boneyard.

And am I mistaken? Doesn't that hole in the ground have the look of being prepared; carefully cleaned up of any marks made by the backhoe bucket?



Larger photo of rusty old engine rotor allegedly found buried at Shanksville

Reheat do you really believe that a 90 ton 757 aircraft is buried deep in the ground under this hole? Where is any sign of it? Where did all the jet fuel go? It certainly did not go on all of the weeds closely surrounding the alleged 757 hole in the ground.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
And why is the engine already all rusty? All the turbine rotors I have seen were really shiny. Of course I have never visited an aircraft boneyard.



Rusty? HILARIOUS!

It's covered in dirt, unless you actually expect people to believe they found a "rusty" engine (are they made of parts that rust?) that is the exact same color as the surrounding soil!


Great conspiracy plan - "Let's spend all this money to deceive everyone, but let's find a "rusty" engine to plant and take pictures of, no one will figure THAT out! "



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Rusty? HILARIOUS!
It's covered in dirt, unless you actually expect people to believe they found a "rusty" engine (are they made of parts that rust?) that is the exact same color as the surrounding soil!



Well actually, now that you bring it up; I was wondering how that BIG backhoe bucket dug the soft dirt out from underneath some smaller areas of that alleged turbofan engine rotor. I will be doggonned if I can see any footprints from those guys above, if they were digging with their shovels.

Do you think the backhoe operator, when he planted the rusty engine piece, just neglected to scoop some dirt up to drop on the rotor to cover it better? Maybe those guys up topside should have used their shovels and filled in those little openings.

Doesn't the FBI ever learn from their mistakes? They totally screwed up the light poles earlier at the Pentagon didn't they?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Yeah, I understand 'kind of' what you are saying my friend. However, here is the real problem. There is a difference between survive and disintigrate. Even airline chairs would leave SOMETHING behind.

However, amazingly enough, just like with the Pentagon and the towers, everything miraculously dissolved into nothing. Even the bulk of the buildings were pulverized. Wow.

So, yes, an engine part has a better chance of surviving in tact than a seat but there will still be some pieces of that seat. The fire from the explosion would not destroy everything in a crash.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
These types of threads really expose the intelligence and logic of an individual.

If UA93 is beneath the crater, we should expect to find most of the main
frame, contents, landing gear, wheels, etc. starting with the tail section
components near the surface.

Here's an animation and still photo to help everyone with the arrangement
and expected order of debris when digging into the crater:



Please observe the placement of the rear landing gear and tail section
in relation to the engines (sorry, had to highlight the obvious for some...
)






Rusted, dirt covered, or painted pink...where are the other parts of this
massive jet?

[edit on 13-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you think the backhoe operator, when he planted the rusty engine piece *SNIP*


Hmm, did you find out how the engine "rusted"? AFAIK, the engines parts are made of titanium, aluminum, stainless steel, and nickel. None of which rust.

I think you're just making stuff up again. It's dirt, it's the same color as the soil. You have failed at spinning your conspiracy fantasy once again.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you think the backhoe operator, when he planted the rusty engine piece *SNIP*


Hmm, did you find out how the engine "rusted"? AFAIK, the engines parts are made of titanium, aluminum, stainless steel, and nickel. None of which rust.

I think you're just making stuff up again. It's dirt, it's the same color as the soil. You have failed at spinning your conspiracy fantasy once again.


You can say with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed in this place?

The dis-info material your handler is teaching you is getting lamer by the day!


[edit on 13/5/09 by MajesticJax]

[edit on 13/5/09 by MajesticJax]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
4.bp.blogspot.com...

3.bp.blogspot.com...

looks like some more plane debris at the crash site.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Since Reheat believes I'm derailing another thread, I'll do the mods and him a
favour by creating this topic.



Turbolax ~

Can you please post ONE and i mean ONE experienced, aircraft crash investigator that does NOT think a plane crashed near Shanksville on 9/11?

Thank you.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
These types of threads really expose the intelligence and logic of an individual.


They sure do.


If UA93 is beneath the crater, we should expect to find most of the main frame, contents, landing gear, wheels, etc. starting with the tail section
components near the surface.


Again, it is apparent you are unfamiliar with the dynamics of a high-speed crash of an airliner. To state that the "tail section" should be expected to be "near the surface" of such a porous and loosely packed ground shows the lack of not only experience in these matters but common sense, as well. Angle of impact, trajectory, speed, consistency of the field of impact - all these contribute to a disintegration of the aircraft that makes this crash and impact site quite understandable and believable.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Turbolax, that's kinda funny.


Why do you people avoid the questions and answer with questions?

If you want a list of ACI that don't think UA93 crashed in Shanksville,
visit:

pilotsfor911truth.org

and/or

patriotsquestion911.com

There is at least ONE on those sites.

Sorry to say, but anyone that thinks a commercial airliner can bury itself
165 feet into the earth is a F.M.

Fabulous Man?


[edit on 13-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 



Turbolax ~

Can you please post ONE and i mean ONE experienced, aircraft crash investigator that does NOT think a plane crashed near Shanksville on 9/11?

Thank you.


CameronFox, here is ONE experienced, aircraft crash investigator who does not buy into your OS.



George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California . In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek
4.bp.blogspot.com...

3.bp.blogspot.com...

looks like some more plane debris at the crash site.


Yes we already know about those few easily planted pieces. But they were not in that hole were they? It looks like NOTHING else in that hole with that very shallow originally 6 ton engine rotor doesn't it? And yet the entire 90 ton aluminum aircraft was allegedly buried in that teensey hole? Where is it?

And then there are the alleged black boxes without serial numbers, one supposedly planted 15 feet deep and the other supposedly planted 25 feet deep, yet somehow in some miraculous manner, the aircraft is spotted over Indian Lake minutes after the crash? What gives? What kind of idiots would allow their script to get so out of control?

Still I question the absence of shredded aluminum or shattered seats or smooshed baggage or crushed steel wheels and tires from the 90 ton aircraft which was supposed to be buried in this hole. Where is it?

Can anybody spot any pieces of shredded aircraft aluminum in these official trial photos? Where is the 90 ton 757? The huge heavy steel landing struts should have been down there. How come there are no official trial photos of them? Too heavy and bulky to truck into the crash site? Too obvious? Couldn't steal any from an aircraft boneyard?



Larger photo of suspicious old engine rotor allegedly found buried at Shanksville





How did the dirt pile itself back up over the burrowing 90 ton Boeing 757 aircraft?











Alleged Flight 93 crash site

Where is the 90 ton Boeing 757 aircraft?



[edit on 5/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


It's apparent that "I" am not familiar with crash dynamics of a high speed
airliner?



Again, it is apparent you are unfamiliar with the dynamics of a high-speed crash of an airliner. To state that the "tail section" should be expected to be "near the surface" of such a porous and loosely packed ground shows the lack of not only experience in these matters but common sense, as well.


Well tell me, are you an accident investigator? Can you tell me how loose
this dirt might have been?

Can you also approximate where the tail section should have rested in
relation to the engine found?

I love how these guys take shots at our replies, but offer nothing in return.

I'll patiently await your response with experience high speed airliner crash
dynamics.

Still waiting for Mr. Reheat to appear (it has been a while).



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
of such a porous and loosely packed ground shows the lack of not only experience in these matters but common sense, as well.

Instead of using subjective terms such as 'porous' and 'loosely packed' to describe the soil, could you please quantify these terms?

Also, please provide a geological study of the site that proves that your quantities are correct.

I can't take anything at face value, so it's not possible for me to believe that the soil was 'porous' or 'loosely packed' just because you stated it on an internet forum. Common sense dictates that you'll be able to support your claims. Thanks.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Is it my imagination, or is that not a lot of people to be poring over the crash site?

Looks like they are using MUCH fewer personnel than you see at other crash sites. Less people to control?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

posted by turbofan
Since Reheat believes I'm derailing another thread, I'll do the mods and him a
favour by creating this topic.

Mr. Reheat, do you believe that a 757/767 bore itself 165 feet into the ground
as per photo linked in the other thread?

Do you also believe that digging 4 feet below the surface would reveal only
part of an engine, and not a tail section, fuselage, seats, wings, etc.?

Thank you again for your expert analysis!


It seems that Hollywood and Disney have been prepping us for decades on the good old boob tube with cartoon characters who can miraculously set aside normal physics laws and penetrate hard surfaces to completely disappear inside.

Is that what has happened here at Shanksville? Did the New World Order Elite decide the American people were sufficiently brainwashed to buy their BS?

How would an aircraft burrow underground and completely disappear with the dirt piling back up over it? If 90 tons of aircraft is underground in that teensey hole; then where is the 90 tons of earth which it displaced? Compacted? Pushed into the inner core of the mantle? Poof?



How did the dirt pile itself back up over the burrowing 90 ton Boeing 757 aircraft?





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join