Shanksville engine planted by a backhoe bucket? (theory)

After 6 years we should have the FBI and NTSB reports. I wouild like to know why we can not see these reports.

I would like a good reason why their are 2 distinct debris fields from flight 93 and why they are so far away from the crash site. The plane was supposed to have hit the ground at a high angle of attack, so why is debris so far away ?

[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
As far as theories go......I don't see how this is off base at all.

Theories are theories, no one is disputing that speculation is needed when considering 9/11 conspiracies. But the credibility of a theorist is better served by avoiding the presentation of speculative theories as fact. And, avoiding the presentation of photos that have been refined to support a speculative theory as source evidence.

Agreed.

EYEWITNESS REPORTS of Flight 93 coming down in Shanksville.

There was a plane. It crashed. It may have been shot down, but it was a plane and it crashed. To say any different is absurd. It insults the memories of those who died on those flights. (and the people who died were real, and that is well documented.)

Originally posted by FlyersFan
EYEWITNESS REPORTS of Flight 93 coming down in Shanksville.

There was a plane. It crashed. It may have been shot down, but it was a plane and it crashed. To say any different is absurd. It insults the memories of those who died on those flights. (and the people who died were real, and that is well documented.)

Extremely important CONFIRMED eyewitness testimony filmed on location will be coming soon showing otherwise.

Originally posted 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?

I think it's becoming obvious that this couldn't be where the engine was found. Just look at the dirt behind the engine. You can see that the dirt behind the engine appears excavated. That dirt couldn't have been excavated with the engine where it is shown in the photo because the engine would have been in the way.


To me it looks like the engine was placed where it is in the photo to create the impression that it was found buried in the crater.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Extremely important CONFIRMED eyewitness testimony filmed on location will be coming soon showing otherwise.

Riiiiiiiiight. if it was so extremely important and if it were real, it wouldn't be taking almost 6 years for it to come out.

Someone has got the fakers in the shop working overtime to come up with some 'footage', eh?

I stand by my statement. This is an insult to those who died on flight 93. They may have been brought down by the terrorists, or they may have been shot down before the terrorists could bring them down, but they DIED non the less.

I'm done... OUT. :shk:

A couple more oddities:

* How do they know it was a hijackers and not a passengers?

* Where is the second engine (there were two engines, right?)

Don't forget also the "FBI approved" photo of the smoke plume. I guess that is real, too. As was debunked many threads ago - it is wholly inconsistent with any plane crash, and further, with the location of the crash site and the time at which it was allegedly taken.

The search tool should yield some results.

Whilst I don't quite know what is going on with KT (I thought he was an OK guy) he is raising some valid points IMHO regarding Flight 93. Right or wrong, they need to be discussed, to either get support (with evidence) or debunked so we can all move on.

The CVR argument was also very valid, too.

Why do so many people have "WARN" next to their names now?? What did I miss??

[edit on 13-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

killtown

I'm still not clear on what your 'evidence' for 'evidence' is since I noticed anything that goes against what you say, you label it fake. Then you proceed to pull out pics and films to prove something else.

So in reality there is no reason then for anyone to TRUST YOU, since nothing can be verified anymore. The yardstick you have been using is now in reverse.

Are you only willing to accept evidence that fits your theory and disregard any other evidence?

Originally posted by mister.old.school
1) But the credibility of a theorist is better served by avoiding the presentation of speculative theories as fact.
2) And, avoiding the presentation of photos that have been refined to support a speculative theory as source evidence.

1) So that is what everyone is crying about, that I didn't present my post in the form of a question? Oh geez, what a cardinal sin I did.

Conspiracy skeptics always complain that I only ask questions and never give answers and one of the few times I give answers I get roasted on a fire and almost banned from this forum. Go figure.

2) "refined," huh?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I stand by my statement. This is an insult to those who died on flight 93. They may have been brought down by the terrorists, or they may have been shot down before the terrorists could bring them down, but they DIED non the less.

I'm done... OUT. :shk:

The way not to insult the people that died is not to spread the lies started by the media and do research into what actually happened that day.

Originally posted by talisman
killtown

I'm still not clear on what your 'evidence' for 'evidence' is since I noticed anything that goes against what you say, you label it fake. Then you proceed to pull out pics and films to prove something else.

So in reality there is no reason then for anyone to TRUST YOU, since nothing can be verified anymore. The yardstick you have been using is now in reverse.

Are you only willing to accept evidence that fits your theory and disregard any other evidence?

What the hell are you talking about?

Can you be a little more coherent in your posts?

@FlyersFan: What of the passengers and crew of the other flights? What of the people who died in the WTC?

By asking questions of what happened, we are HELPING them. There is nothing wrong with questioning the official story - I cite Watergate as a good example of people asking questions. I suggest you watch also the film "Good Night, and Good Luck". That was about taking on a government with nothing but verifiable fact. What we are doing presently is trying to ascertain the facts so they can be presented.

Remember also that facts are facts until dis-proven otherwise. He has held up an otherwise official photo, which factually states "this is an engine from Flight 93". Prove it isn't. I believe that is what KT is trying to achieve.

In science, if you have one piece of evidence to suggest x but 15 pieces of evidence that indirectly point to y, you have to take y as the odds for x being true are out weighed 15 to 1, but you can't prove it for definite.

This is at the proving stage.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Killtown
2) "refined," huh?

Perhaps you should review my response on the first page of this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Perhaps you should review my response on the first page of this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"we can easily compare the source against what was presented in the opening post and discern that a "conspiracy fakery" artist has altered the imagery saturation and contrast in an effort to support their proposition. "

Um buddy, that IS the original picture I used. But if you want to continue to slander me, go right ahead.

If you open the original, then open the image you provided and compare side-by-side, you can clearly see some alterations that include reducing the redish color of the dirt surrounding the engine. This ends up enhacing the remaining orange tint, claimed to be rust on the engine.



(typo correction)

[edit on 13-6-2007 by mister.old.school]

Originally posted by mister.old.school
If you open the original, then open the image you provided and compare side-by-side, you can clearly see some alterations that include reducing the redish color of the dirt surrounding the engine. This ends up enhacing the remaining orange tint, claimed to be rust on the engine.

That's the exact same photo I used and guess what, they look EXACTLY the same. I'm guessing they look the same because I used EXACTLY the same photo.

Originally posted by Killtown
they look EXACTLY the same.

Are you certain about that?

Here is what I'm talking about: screen capture (image too wide for thread)

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Killtown
they look EXACTLY the same.

Are you certain about that?

Here is what I'm talking about: screen capture (image too wide for thread)

Well maybe you should get a new monitor cause why I did a side-by-side screen shot, they looked the same to me:

Originally posted by mister.old.school
If you open the original, then open the image you provided and compare side-by-side, you can clearly see some alterations that include reducing the redish color of the dirt surrounding the engine. This ends up enhacing the remaining orange tint, claimed to be rust on the engine.

I don't think this is true. I use free software called Pixie that will give you the html color for any color shown on the screen, and while there are *tiny* differences, the colors are almost identical. Download Pixie and try it yourself.

Originally posted by nick7261
I don't think this is true.

My color management system and monitor is calibrated using Monaco OptixXR Pro. When I open and compare the images, side-by-side, I see the effect I provided. The original has much more red (clay) in the soil, and indeed, the entire image is very "red" because of this. The example provided in the original post has almost no red in the soil, yet retains red tones in the engine.