It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Claim that UA93 engine piece recovered from pond

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Swampfox46_1999 says that it's a fact that an engine part from Flight 93 was found in a pond a few hundred feet from the crater and that this fact "hasn't changed."



This must of been one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest piece of Flight 93 that was allegedly recovered. So let's see a pic of this engine piece recovered from the pond!

Then explain why the story about this mystery engine evolved so much.




[edit on 30-6-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Either the authorities took no photos of the engine part recovered from the pond (or from nearby) or else they have never released them.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


What?!?! This isn't Rumsfield land! Absence of evidence in this case means Their aint no evidence just people claiming their is.

The plane smashed into the hole.... 50 to 80 percent of it went into the dirt like water.... Some of the percent left out of the crater flew 300+ yards into the pond.

My guess is that planes that can fly through dirt like water and bring down buildings must be capable of anything.... that or it is an inside job full of lies and misinformation.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Either the authorities took no photos of the engine part recovered from the pond (or from nearby) or else they have never released them.

Why not or no engine part was ever recovered in the pond?


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But you have to concede that it is not a fact that an engine part was recovered since we have no verifiable evidence?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


It was fan section from jet engin. Fans fit infront of engine to suck in
large amount of air to mix with combustion products from engine
increasing thrust




Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."


Fan broke off on impact and ROLLED in direction plane was traveling from impact point coming to rest in the catch basin



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Fan broke off on impact

How do you think it managed do that when the other engine supposedly burrowed through the "soft" ground? Engines are the heaviest/strongest parts of the plane. You would think pieces of the engines would be the LAST parts of a plane to bounce of soft earth.


and ROLLED in direction plane was traveling from impact point coming to rest in the catch basin

It rolled through that tall/thick wall of trees that are in the way?



Not looking good for skeptics.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Remember, ATH911, physics and common sense don't exist when it comes to 9/11 issues



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Do skeptics concede that the claim of an engine part being recovered in that pond is suspicious at best?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
What would be the benefit of lying about where a part was found?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Here is your proof. There was a very large piece found there.

A section of the engine, weighing almost a tonne, was found on the bed of a catchment pond, 200 metres downhill.

link

There was also an engine found over 2 miles away.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

posted by esdad71
Here is your proof. There was a very large piece found there.

A section of the engine, weighing almost a tonne, was found on the bed of a catchment pond, 200 metres downhill.

link

There was also an engine found over 2 miles away.


Ooooops? Three turbofan engines on a 757? That should be a Guiness first.

Let me see if I got this right.

One engine is sitting in the alleged hole a few inches below the surface looking like it just came out of the backhoe bucket?

A second engine allegedly bounced 300 yards through the trees into the pond? (measures 1050 feet away from alleged 93 burial hole) Google map

And the 3rd engine ended up in Indian Lake about 2 miles away?



Well golly gee the alleged Flt 93 trajectory was to the south in the direction engine 2 allegedly bounced; yet engine three bounced 2 miles to the southeast, and there is allegedly another Flt 93 debris field 8 miles to the southeast?

Flight 93 Crash Site

What gives here? Three engines? Two planes? Two different government agencies trying to stage the Flt 93 scene? Loss of communication? Another Three Stooges Comedy routine?


posted by ATH911

It rolled through that tall/thick wall of trees that are in the way?



Not looking good for skeptics.


I'm sure glad I'm not one of the skeptics trying to defend this nonsense.



[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Fox - NBC Rare Footage

No debris on the ground. Nothing. How little debris is visible.



Nothing larger than a phone book.

Nothing there but a hole in the ground.

Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane was there.

No smoke. No fire.



Of course later some pieces larger than a phone book did allegedly show up.



I'm sure glad I'm not one of the skeptics trying to defend this nonsense.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Sorry, Pieces of engines. Thought I should come back to clarify before I am misquoted again.


There is also plenty of debris.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Ooooops? Three turbofan engines on a 757? That should be a Guiness first.


Sarcasm is noted. And noted. And noted. In fact, it shows a certain hint of desperation...a tactic necessary in order to confuse others.

Some are quite the master at bringing in scads of images, how about doing some due diligence and showing a schematic of a B757 showing the two P/W turbofans and the APU that's located in the tail. Whilst at it, research into exactly what an APU is, how it's built, and what it looks like normally, and how it may be distorted after a tremendous impact. Really, I leave this to those truly interested in sorting hyperbole from truth. Some are so determined to undermine the "Official Story" they have to resort to somewhat deceptive tactics!!

Of course, for those who don't accept the task, then it will be inferred that you are afraid of truth that disagrees or weakens YOUR opinions and beliefs.

I couldn't find a Pratt & Whitney video, but here's a CFM-56, very similar, only slightly smaller. It is used on the B737, and the Airbus A340, for instance. Please watch, learn, and pay particular attention to the construction of the engine, and its various components:





You can now see that a jet engine is not a solid piece of machinery, it is a combination of thousands of parts and when operating, the bigger important pieces are rotating at from hundreds to thousands of RPM...that is a lot of centrifugal energy.

I'm surprised people have such a simplistic view of how things really work...so many factors, to include momentum (kinetic energy), air pressure and forces, not only air resistance, and compressibility, but the forces of air in the pressure front of an explosion, too. I mean, Hollywood exaggerates it, but we all see the stunt guys being blown around in front of explosions, right? If you still don't understand how a big an effect air pressure can have, just look at the results in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing!



(You'll have to click through, click on 'oklahoma city bombing' to see the pic!)


[edit on 7/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 





One engine is sitting in the alleged hole a few inches below the surface looking like it just came out of the backhoe bucket?


"alleged" hole
Oh,well let's call it a crater then. Let's look again, shall we...it is partially buried in the dirt...so to infer "like it just came out of the backhoe bucket" is quite a leap of logic. The picture could just as easily be interpreted to show that the backhoe had recently dug the crater, exposing the engine portion (note the word "portion").

SO...without corroboration, the claim that it may have just come out of the backhoe bucket isn't valid, it needs proof. Or, more correctly, it is an opinion, not an established fact.



A second engine allegedly bounced 300 yards through the trees into the pond? (measures 1050 feet away from alleged 93 burial hole)


Who implies that the parts "bounced" along the ground, through trees??? Don't people realize that things will get thrown up into the air, and follow an arcing path as they fall back to the ground???

Here, you can see actual video of engine testing in controlled environments. Note, please...controlled testing. This is to see that the engine nacelles will successfully contain engine fan blades that separate so they don't pose a danger to the rest of the airplane. It requires the engine nacelle remain intact!!!

(Please also note, the narrator says that ONE fan blade contains enough energy to toss a medium sized car some hundred feet into the air!!! Imagine how far the blade will travel all by itself!!!)



It certainly is nice to learn just how destructive kinetic and rotational energies can be.



And the 3rd engine ended up in Indian Lake about 2 miles away?


I believe that engine parts were found in and/or near Indian Lake.



Well golly gee the alleged Flt 93 trajectory was to the south in the direction engine 2 allegedly bounced; yet engine three bounced 2 miles to the southeast, and there is allegedly another Flt 93 debris field 8 miles to the southeast?



Please, a lie (or, misrepresentation) isn't going to help boost the case here.

ntsb.gov...

(Look at page 3. [The site will warn of a certificate problem, but it's safe]. Looking at page 3, it shows a very last second twist to the South, just prior to impact. This is an anomaly due to the rolling inverted and diving into the ground. General momentum of the vehicle would have been to the East/SouthEast. The tiny 'hook' shown on the ground track plot is an impossible aerodynamic turn in direction)

Again, to clarify....the Flight Recorder data will only reflect what instruments are reporting to it...the inverted and violent maneuver caused the temporary anomalous heading readings, which were recorded the last few seconds.

Also, to clarify...as mentioned, rotating engine parts have a tremendous amount of energy when they suddenly separate and go flying off due to centrifugal forces. AND, the other debris found at the greater distances were lightweight....papers, carbon fibre mesh, small pieces of cloth, plastic, etc.


AND now, a general comment: WHEN did those who can plainly see that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the UAL93 crash become known as "skeptics"??
?? I thought the ones questioning the Official Story would better be classed as 'skeptical'...?

Because, in order for what those sceptics claim as a "truth", i.e., planting of evidence and/or a shoot-down, they have to allow that anyone who 'planted' or 'staged' the event were incredibly, horribly incompetent! Again, it beggars belief, when the easist thing do do is simply have the airplane crash!

The over-all scale of a 'staged' operation is far, far more extensive and complicated, if you just think about it. Human remains, shrapnel, airplane parts.....it's staggeringly illogical.

[edit on 7/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Saw a landing gear light 75 yeards from crash of Lear - only reason it
didnt go farther was that hit parked car (try explain that to your insurance
company!)

As Weedwacker said trremendous energy stored in aircraft at impact time
That energy has to be dissapated somehow . This is not Looney Tunes
Wiley Coyote and his Acme airplane stopping dead, but real life where
physics dictate what is going to happen



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Of course. 9-11 Physics 101. Aircraft and aircraft parts can change directions instantaneously and trajectories can go around corners. Only on that day of course; on any other day physics follow normal laws.

UnPopular Mechanics claims that there was a northwest wind blowing at 9 to 12 mph and that the flight path at burial time was to the south at 500 mph or more.



That's hardly enough wind to fly a kite. So how did a 9 to 12 mph breeze blow aircraft debris 8 miles away? And how would a heavy engine part fly or bounce 2 miles away in the wrong direction to the southeast, instead of to the south where it was allegedly aimed?



And UnPopular Mechanics, official apologist for the 9-11 perps, claims that the debris was blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash all the way to Indian Lake two miles away. They pretend to know nothing about the New Baltimore debris site eight miles away.

But where is the evidence of all that alleged immense heat and blast effects in this dry grass and weeds around the alleged burial pit?





[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


SO...without corroboration, the claim that it may have just come out of the backhoe bucket isn't valid, it needs proof. Or, more correctly, it is an opinion, not an established fact.


There is no corroboration (no serial numbers) that the alleged turbofan engine sitting next to the backhoe came from Flight 93 tail # N591UA. There is no corroboration that the other two alleged engines (or parts) came from Flight 93. There is no corroboration that any of the engines from any of the 9-11 sites came from their alleged respective aircraft. There is no corroboration that anything came from the four alleged aircraft.

There is no corroboration that the alleged turbofan engine piece did not come out of the backhoe bucket. I have seen none of the people working at the alleged 93 crash site asked what they saw. Maybe they all saw a bunch of FBI dudes loading it from a truck into the backhoe bucket and are eagerly waiting to be asked. How come the MSM pretend journalists have never followed up on all of this?


And the 3rd engine ended up in Indian Lake about 2 miles away?


posted by weedwhacker
I believe that engine parts were found in and/or near Indian Lake.



So you believe that a 9 to 12 mph wind can blow heavy engine parts two miles away? It could not have been the stored kinetic energy of the parts because the aircraft trajectory was to the south in a different direction than Indian Lake. It could not have been a huge explosion which hurled the engine parts two miles away because there is no evidence of a huge explosion around the alleged burial pit.



[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 





posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SO...without collaboration, the claim that it may have just come out of the backhoe bucket isn't valid, it needs proof. Or, more correctly, it is an opinion, not an established fact.




There is no collaboration (no serial numbers) ...



Preston...I tried very, very hard to reply to points in YOUR post without replying in any direct way to YOU. It was meant as a generic response to all, to include YOU as well, if you so desired.

HOWEVER....You 'quoted' me, in the post I am now responding to....but you changed a word in it....I wrote "corroboration". I did not go back and edit that from "collaboration"...YOU took MY quote, and changed a word to suit YOUR agenda.

Poor form, mate. I hope all will see this and consider the source.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



It could not have been the stored kinetic energy of the parts because the aircraft trajectory was to the south in a different direction...


Ummm...if you had watched the video you'd have seen that the parts of the engine that rotate are going to fly off perpindicular to the axis of the fuselage...that's 90 degrees from the heading of the airplane, at the time of engine part separation. SO, you just proved my point! Thanks, mate!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join