Claim that UA93 engine piece recovered from pond

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezz, you persist in playing such a silly game, it doesn't put you in a very good light, in other's eyes, does it?

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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This post, for example, is as silly as if I told you that a V-6 reciprocating car engine that breaks a connecting rod might 'throw' that rod through the side of the crankcase and you insisted on seeing the charts and diagrams to prove it!

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.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to charts, graphs and calculations? I'll leave that to you, since apparently it's so important to your understanding.

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.

posted by weedwhacker
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!

posted by tezzajw
Please show all calculations, diagrams with angles and other necessary figures to support this claim.

Thanks.

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?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23a785f59412.jpg[/atsimg]

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]

Originally posted by SPreston

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.

posted by SPreston

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.

posted by GenRadek
Who said anything about disappearing? Oh I'm sorry you must have overlooked the numerous photos of the 757 debris

Alleged 9-11 Flight 93 OFFICIAL STORY

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96fb257147f8.gif[/atsimg]

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c14a126edd60.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/934670c05843.jpg[/atsimg]





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

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.

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.

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...

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.

...and wouldn't their highest velocity be in the direction of the original flight path into the ground?

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 consider that the part would have been angled at 40 degrees to the ground did you?

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...

Lateral axis (pitch)

Pitch

The lateral axis passes through the plane from wingtip to wingtip. Rotation about this axis is called pitch. Pitch changes the vertical direction the aircraft's nose is pointing. The elevators are the primary control of pitch.

Longitudinal axis (roll)

Roll

The longitudinal axis passes through the plane from nose to tail. Rotation about this axis is called bank or roll. Bank changes the orientation of the aircraft's wings with respect to the downward force of gravity. The pilot changes bank angle by increasing the lift on one wing and decreasing it on the other. This differential lift causes bank rotation around the longitudinal axis. The ailerons are the primary control of bank. The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

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

Did you consider the speed of the alleged impact?

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.

No.

YES.

reply to post by weedwhacker


post by SPreston

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.

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96fb257147f8.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

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.

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

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.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

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?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96fb257147f8.gif[/atsimg]

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.

Originally posted by tezzajw
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.

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.

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm not going to waste my time doing complicated calculations and I suspect weedwhacker won't either.

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.

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

You cannot infer anything with certainty from the fact that no official photos are available. You are just grabbing at a particular explanation, i.e., the plane never crashed. This is unscientific.

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

Who's "we"? If you mean 9/11 truthers, then - yes. But there are public statements available from people who claimed to see the fans of the Flight 93 engine being lifted from the pond. Were they lying because they were involved in the 9/11 deception, too? I find that hard to believe.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

You cannot infer anything with certainty from the fact that no official photos are available. You are just grabbing at a particular explanation, i.e., the plane never crashed. This is unscientific.

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

Who's "we"? If you mean 9/11 truthers, then - yes. But there are public statements available from people who claimed to see the fans of the Flight 93 engine being lifted from the pond. Were they lying because they were involved in the 9/11 deception, too? I find that hard to believe.

Thanks for bringing this back up, micpsi. It once again underscores the crucial keystone in the Truther Arch of Reality - specifically that if they personally are not contacted by the FBI/CIA/NTSB/etc and provided exclusive access to every bit of information, every photo, every interview, every piece of analysis down to the most minute detail, then something did not happen. No photo? Didn't happen. No serial numbers? Didn't happen. No pictures of body parts strewn over a field or intestine hanging from a tree branch? Didn't happen. No access to the wreckage? Didn't happen. It is the absolute easiest way to approach something you lack the ability to understand - it did not happen.

It is a huge reason why they cling to these absurd speculative positions - it is the only defense they have left that the evil Gub'mint is lying and since *they* are not privy to *all* the information, the event didn't occur. You almost want to add a "So there" with an arms-crossed pout at the end of that.

So, to borrow that philosophy, I have never, ever met nor seen a "9/11 Truther" in person (and I have been to many large cities and capitals in the 9+ years since 9/11), so I therefore claim that they do not exist and they are all computer-generated entities spounting random-generated sound bites selected from a database of 9/11-related verbiage.

So there.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451


Exactly .

We have photos and video of planes crashing into the towers but , that either 'didn't happen' , or , it was 'different planes' .

If we had a video of 93 crashing into the ground , there are those who would claim that it didn't happen , or , it was not Flight 93 .

The only thing that will ever appease the CTers is if the gov comes out and says "Yea , we did it ..." . The gov would not have to provide any proof or evidence that they did it , only say that they did .

And then , another conspiracy would be born . Because the gov surely would not admit to this unless they were trying to cover something else up ...

A little govaphobia goes a long way .

reply to post by trebor451

So, to borrow that philosophy, I have never, ever met nor seen a "9/11 Truther" in person (and I have been to many large cities and capitals in the 9+ years since 9/11), so I therefore claim that they do not exist and they are all computer-generated entities spounting random-generated sound bites selected from a database of 9/11-related verbiage.

Come down to Ground Zero - can find a few of these losers hanging around and harassing people

Always ask them to show me their day pass from the local mental health facility - want to make sure didnt escape......

Thanks for supplying absolute proof that an engine fan was retrieved from that pond.

Oh wait...

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Its still just two of the three debris sites for Flt. 93. The reason they do not show you is because they would tip their hand to you.

Originally posted by ATH911
Thanks for supplying absolute proof that an engine fan was retrieved from that pond.

Oh wait...

So lets see - you don't think a piece of an engine landed in a retention basin downstream from the crash site because:

a) You haven't been shown any photos.
b) There were trees in the way.
c) Nobody has told you what the part number was on the piece.

So, now you don't believe there was an engine piece, so you don't believe there was an engine, so you don't believe there was a plane, so you don't believe there was a crash, so you don't believe there was a hijacking.

And you think this is an acceptable and rational standard for processing reality and information?

Originally posted by hooper
So lets see - you don't think a piece of an engine landed in a retention basin downstream from the crash site because:

a) You haven't been shown any photos.
b) There were trees in the way.
c) Nobody has told you what the part number was on the piece.

a) Correct. Have you seen any photos of the reported "heaviest" piece of debris found at the scene? They took photos of the two largest pieces reportedly found at the scene.

Also, how did an engine fan escape from burrowing in the "soft" ground when most of the plane supposedly did?

b) Yes. Are you disagreeing that there were trees in the way?!

c) No. "C" would be that early news reports said an engine was found far from the crater before the pond was even searched.

Friday, September 14, 2001

State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said.

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft “at a considerable distance from the crash site.”

“It appears to be the whole engine,” he added.

How do you explain that one?