Claim that UA93 engine piece recovered from pond

On the contrary, weedwhacker, I imagine that some people here strongly agree with me and the probing questions that I ask.


It's hardly a silly question at all, weedwhacker. You made a claim that part of the engine should be found where it was (90 degrees) because it rotates at high rpm.

I challenged you to show why the part should have ended up there and you failed to deliver.

You did not consider that the part would have been angled at 40 degrees to the ground did you? Did you consider the speed of the alleged impact? No. Why wouldn't those engine parts have flown straight down into the dirt at alleged impact? You made a claim, without proving it.


Draw me your diagrams of the alleged crash site and show me how the part of the engine should have ended up where you claimed it did. Use forces, use equations, use whatever you need to show it.

Poor weedwhacker believes that a high reveving turbofan engine when it destroys itself against the ground will spin out its broken turbine parts two miles away.

But if the engine is diving into the dirt at 750 feet per second; where would the engine parts find the time to spin away from the wreckage, and wouldn't their highest velocity be in the direction of the original flight path into the ground?



Poor weedwhacker also signed on to the nonsensical fuselage of pressurized air created a blast effect through the towers and also created the Pentagon Exit Hole video and placed his esteemed support upon the nonsense.

This 9-11 science of the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists is really peculiar.

Gee these Wile E Coyote copycats are just so ridiculous aren't they?

Who would have imagined an aircraft diving into the ground and disappearing?

If an author had put it in a book; he would have been laughed out of town.



[edit on 7/3/09 by SPreston]

ahh yes, of course. Same can be said of the "truth" movement with their "professionals" who have to publish their findings in a pay-to-print magazine.

Who said anything about disappearing? Oh I'm sorry you must have overlooked the numerous photos of the 757 debris and the eyewitness accounts of those who were on their hands and knees day in day out combing for debris and human remains. I wonder what they would do if you brought up your nonsense to them?

You know, much of what you claim with your fantasies, if they were presented to a court of law, would be laughed straight out of court.

Alleged 9-11 Flight 93 OFFICIAL STORY



Do you see an aircraft here? This is where it was supposed to dive into the strip mine. This is where they claimed to find the black boxes 15 feet and 25 feet underground. Do you actually believe such nonsense? Magic? Do you also think cartoons and the Simpsons are reality? This is where they claimed to find an engine inches below the surface.









So where is the aircraft if it did not disappear underground? The Flight 93 memorial, reciting the official story, tells visitors that about 80% of Flight 93 was in the ground.

Google Video Link

So if 80% of the aircraft did not disappear underground, then where is it in the photos above? Don't you think you should get your story straight with your fellow pseudoskeptics and government loyalists? Are you abandoning the 9-11 Flight 93 OFFICIAL STORY and creating a new one? How come you guys are pushing Wile E Coyote science? And if the aircraft did disappear into the ground, then how did the 48 some odd tons of dirt it displaced manage to fall right down on top of the hole?



[edit on 7/3/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

---

Please show me the diagrams, charts and mathematical calculations to support your assertion that an engine that "destroys itself against the ground" will NOT spin out its broken turbine parts two miles away.

tezzajw and I await your scholarly dissertation.

Thank you.




Please calculate the energies and kinetic vectors that will support/refute your allegations. Please include all calculations related to said energies and vectors. Also, please include footnotes to show your work.

tezzajw and I await your dissertation.

Thank you.




THAT could be included in the appendix to your dissertation, if you wish. It would qualify as extra credit towards your Final Grade, if it withstands review.

Good Luck!!

(We have faith in you, son!!!)

[edit on 3/7/2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by tezzajw

---

You did not, or you willingly are not, paying attention. Regardless of the angle of the longitudinal axis of the airplane relative to the ground at impact (just so you don't have to "Google" it, the longitudinal axis is the imaginary line that runs from the nose to the tail of an airplane. The engines provide the 'thrust' parallel to this axis. The engines, as mounted, consist of rotating components. These components rotate in a plane that is 90 degrees perpendicular --redundant, I know...but needed for explanation-- to the longitudinal axis) so the impact angle OF THE FUSELAGE is not relevant!!!!! Straight down, or at a one degree angle....the engines still rotate perpendicular to the line of the fuselage!!!!!

here....the verbiage, link to see the pretty pictures!!!

en.wikipedia.org...



Ya know, I could be getting about $65 per hour for instructing you in this...you should be grateful for the lessons.




Please show me the graphs, calculations and mathematics that show the relevance of that question. Please, also include all trajectories and forces that are applicable.

Thank you.



YES.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

post by SPreston



It is your claim which you pulled out of you know where. No scientific study is necessary to disprove such nonsense. Your pretend aircraft was supposedly diving into the ground on a 40 degree angle from the horizontal. The turbofan engines sitting forward on their pylons would have still hit the ground before the wings. The spinning turbines would have buried in dirt at 750 feet per second, preventing them from being hurled 2 miles away. The aircraft should have shattered and scattered across the surface and hundreds of feet down range. It would not have buried 25 feet below the surface or deeper with the displaced dirt somehow flowing back over the hole like water. One of the small black boxes from the tail definitely would not have buried deeper than objects nearer the front of the plane. Flight 93 is a ridiculous cartoon reserved for mindless sheeple.

On the contrary, weedwhacker. I await your proof for your claims. You're trying to deflect all of your claims, by trying to place a burden of proof upon SPreston.

weedwhacker, you know that this doesn't pass the Logic 101 curriculum. You need to support your claims, or admit that they are only subjective opinions and not fact.

You would be getting sued for your entire fortune if you think that you have met minimal standards of education.

You have clearly not been able to produce a single calculation or equation to support your claim.


I'm not claiming anything, weedwhacker. Logic 101 states that you made a claim, so you need to support it.

Claims need to be proven - go and ask Reheat.

This is allegedly the official position of the aircraft as it dived into the ground upside down at a 40 degree angle from the horizontal. It seems the tail of the aircraft along with both black boxes should have been in the pond too; or thereabouts. Doesn't it look like the tail section should break off and tumble down range when the tail hits the ground?



The flight recorders were allegedly and officially dug up from 15 feet deep and 25 feet deep and officially 80% of the aircraft was buried in the hole.

How could two small flight recorders essentially the same size and weight have such a huge difference in their alleged burial depth? They were side by side back in the tail which logically should break off; so why would the flight recorders be in the hole in the first place?

Logic and common sense and deductive reasoning and the history of our corrupt government tell me that those flight recorders were never at Shanksville and were photographed somewhere else.

Playing your silly game again, I see. I agree with weedwhacker and you're arguing with a combined over 70+ years of aviation experience with jet aircraft.

I'm not going to waste my time doing complicated calculations and I suspect weedwhacker won't either. Revel in your silly game of "I don't believe you without calculations" to prove it if that makes you feel good. It won't change facts.

Translation: I don't know how to do the complicated calculations and I suspect that weedwhacker doesn't know either. Please stop asking weedwhacker to prove what he claims and just believe him instead.