Did a Military Plane, Drop Airplane Parts Over Shanksville?

reply to post by ATH911


thedman,

why are you continuing to duck my post?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by DragonriderGal

 

You did not disappoinjt - found an idiotic reason to dismiss any evidence which punctures your conspiracy fantasy ..

*Snip to avoid excessive quoting charge*

...On my crash scene - found 1/2 of torso, the hand and the fingers - rest was random scraps spread over the
scene

No reason those bigger pieces couldn't have been dropped later by another aircraft. Do you know for a fact those pieces were found the first day? Do you have a map for where those pieces were found? And are they in actuality, proven pieces of a 757?

So what happened at your crash site? Did they go straight in??

And did your site burn? But overall, I am sure that there was enough of the body left that it made most of a whole person. Not just a set of hands and feet, eh?

Originally posted by thedman
Most of the rest of the aircraft was violently fragmented into small pieces

How do you know that when most of the wreckage was supposedly buried?

As stated by FBI - largest piece was engine fan which rolled downhill and lodged in catch basin - it weigh 1000 lb

How did that happen when there is a wall of trees in the way?

as for people - recovered 600 lbs of human remains, estimated at 8% of the total weight

So 92% of the passengers vaporized, but only 5% of the plane?

In violent crash like this bodies are fragmented into what is called "human hamburger" . Scraps of tissue
with few recognizible pieces

So 44 people turned into hamburger meat, yet the coroner never saw a drop of blood at the scene???

.

reply to post by ATH911

Very good questions, ATH911. That is quite odd.. I hadn't thought of it that way. 95% plane recovery and only 8% body recovery. Guess humans disintegrate, without blood, at a higher rate, eh?

And well, maybe that engine just bounced right over that bunch of trees, like a rubber tennis ball. Could happen, right?

Originally posted by ATH911

How did that happen when there is a wall of trees in the way?

The engines of FLT 93 were subjected to forces that the rest of the air frame were not. These include thrust, rotational momentum, (P factor) and gyroscopic force. The gyroscopic force is what played the biggest part in putting one engine straight into the ground and the other one over in the pond.



Gyroscopic force is a resistance force counteracting any external force placed on a spinning mass
.
Since FLT 93 was in a hard righthand roll when it impacted the ground, the gyroscopic forces on the engines would look like this:



This would mean that the port engine should be the one buried in the ground, and the starboard engine, pushed along by residual thrust, should be the one over in the pond. According the oil vapour steaming out of the crater the port engine is the one buried there.

Originally posted by waypastvne

The engines of FLT 93 were subjected to forces that the rest of the air frame were not. These include thrust, rotational momentum, (P factor) and gyroscopic force. The gyroscopic force is what played the biggest part in putting one engine straight into the ground and the other one over in the pond.

*image removed for fear of being accused of excess quoting again*

Gyroscopic force is a resistance force counteracting any external force placed on a spinning mass
.
Since FLT 93 was in a hard righthand roll when it impacted the ground, the gyroscopic forces on the engines would look like this:

*image removed for fear of being accused of excess quoting again*

This would mean that the port engine should be the one buried in the ground, and the starboard engine, pushed along by residual thrust, should be the one over in the pond. According the oil vapour steaming out of the crater the port engine is the one buried there.

Hum... ok, maybe that's why the one engine was flung, and the other didn't sink straight into the ground like the rest of the light weight aluminium air frame and siding. I do find it interesting to consider that an essentially empty beer can would be driven into the ground, but a 1000+lb piece of titanium would bounce or stay neatly near the top of the crater, but hey, it's your story. Please tell it as you like.

But your story fails to address why there isn't a clear path thru the trees into the pond where the supposed other engine came to rest. If it was moving fast enough to end up in that pond, it was also fast enough to have knocked over trees in the process, eh? So, good sir, where's the path of the flying engine? Or are you going to tell me it actually did bounce off that 'soft fill dirt' like a giant tennis ball? Or are you trying to say it broke loose before it even hit the ground?

And after some consideration, I realized as I speculated, in regards to a previous post, if this was in fact a false flag black ops, the purps could have easily come in pre-dawn on 9-11 and dropped those bigger pieces of 'plane'. I know from watching the C-17 run with it's noise suppression mode on during an air show, that things in the sky can move very quietly these days.

C-17 specs-- not a little plane by any stretch!
(Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
Length: 174 ft (53 m)
Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 35,546 US gal (134,556 L)

The 'crash' location was a remote site where people don't usually hang around, would be my guess. If the 'airplane' stuff was dropped here and there before working hours in the pre-dawn before the actual 'crash' by one of the super quiet black ops helicopters, no one would have noticed the stuff prior to the crash (it appears that the bigger pieces were found in the tree line, blocked from the view of the scrap yard, I'd bet), because all the stuff is so small or light weight it wouldn't have been significantly noticeable from the scrap yard above.

Of course some of that light weight stuff could have been dropped by the white jet in it's initial circle.

reply to post by DragonriderGal

The 'crash' location was a remote site where people don't usually hang around

Except for the people who lived there......

There were several residents, including one whose cabin was damaged by flying debris

His windows all are shattered and blown out of their frames, his garage door has disappeared and his ceilings have crumbled and fallen onto floor tiles that have been blasted loose from their moorings.

He's not sure when he'll be able to return to what's left of the once-cozy stone cottage nestled in a thick stand of trees with a view of the sun-dappled cornfields below and the rolling hills beyond. But Barry Hoover said his sorrow at seeing his home nearly destroyed is dwarfed by his grief and sympathy for the 45 people who died Tuesday when United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the hilltop that he calls home.

.

One problem with your conspiracy fantasy is that it is a fantasy......

Originally posted by DragonriderGal
reply to post by ATH911

 

Very good questions, ATH911. That is quite odd.. I hadn't thought of it that way. 95% plane recovery and only 8% body recovery. Guess humans disintegrate, without blood, at a higher rate, eh?

And well, maybe that engine just bounced right over that bunch of trees, like a rubber tennis ball. Could happen, right?

Right!

And if you think the recovery rate was odd, get a load of how the plane supposedly crashed:

Wally Miller on UA93: wingtip hit, 757 cartwheeled, cockpit broke off, rest buried

Originally posted by waypastvne
The gyroscopic force is what played the biggest part in putting one engine straight into the ground and the other one over in the pond.

This would mean that the port engine should be the one buried in the ground, and the starboard engine, pushed along by residual thrust, should be the one over in the pond.

According to the official story, it wasn't an engine in the pond, but a fan from one of the engines.

So this begs the question, what happened to the other engine?

According the oil vapour steaming out of the crater the port engine is the one buried there.

How would there be oil vapor steaming out if the engine was supposedly buried feet below the ground?

Originally posted by thedman

That tree in front of it looks pretty good.

And that would be remnants of the cockpit section, right?

One problem with your conspiracy fantasy is that it is a fantasy......

So why do you keep ducking my posts?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by thedman

You know that is such a sad, sad tale.. especially how "His windows all are shattered and blown out of their frames, his garage door has disappeared and his ceilings have crumbled and fallen onto floor tiles that have been blasted loose from their moorings".

What falling debris? Sound pretty much like blast damage to me.

And his home is in a stand of trees, with views of corn fields and rolling hills.. not any mention of the crash site on the strip mine. So yah, he could have been entirely oblivious to what was going on around the soon to be crash site, tucked away in his cozy little home as he was.

Nice try, but how about somebody who lives there who can actually see the land in question? And who is going to be looking at an old scar in a closed strip mine at zero dark thirty in the morning for no apparent reason? If they are asleep, or not even, some of those black ops helicopters are so quiet, you wouldn't hear them as anything more than a faint swoosh, like the wind blowing. That is the whole point of them, eh?

And a problem with your Official Story is it too is just a fantasy...

reply to post by thedman

You did not disappoinjt - found an idiotic reason to dismiss any evidence which punctures your conspiracy fantasy ..

Want a 6 x 7 ft section of debris ???



Here is another significant section of debris

The photos are not proof of anything, those photos could have been taken anywhere in the world even before 911 happened. Where is the change of evidence to actually prove these photos were taken at the actual crash site? Can you prove that these photos are NOT airplane bone yard scraps?

Doesnt this pretty much prove it was " inside " somewhat ?

www.youtube.com...


Sounds like an admission of guilt to me ! especially around 10:30 or so !

reply to post by MaxBlack


You're thinking of the USAIR crash in Hopewell Township nearly 70 miles away. Not the same place.

Hey ATH here is a new piece of debris. Wadaya think ?
Vertical Stabiliser Main Spar maybe ?
It is the right size. It is the right shape.
Flange on each side just like a vertical stabiliser main spar would have.
It's the strongest part of the tail. It's aluminium not carbon so it won't shatter on impact like the rest of the tail. You've been looking for the tail for years surely you would recognise a part of it when you see it.




I found it just past the Garage lying next to the road. Funny it's been there all along.



So what do you think have we found the tail ?

Originally posted by waypastvne
Hey ATH here is a new piece of debris. Wadaya think ?
Vertical Stabiliser Main Spar maybe ?
It is the right size. It is the right shape.
Flange on each side just like a vertical stabiliser main spar would have.
It's the strongest part of the tail. It's aluminium not carbon so it won't shatter on impact like the rest of the tail. You've been looking for the tail for years surely you would recognise a part of it when you see it.

I found it just past the Garage lying next to the road. Funny it's been there all along.

So what do you think have we found the tail ?

Sorry but it looks like a long piece of wood to me... probably part of Mr. whoever's garage door, eh? Probably why it's 'been there all along'. It would have been obvious to anyone on site initially.

And, to reiterate my question to you: how did the engine (piece) get into the pond without breaking a path thru the trees?? You know the OS says it 'rolled' there. Maybe it was trying to be eco-friendly and so followed the road??

Still waiting on that answer.

Originally posted by KPBigDaddy
Doesnt this pretty much prove it was " inside " somewhat ?

www.youtube.com...


Sounds like an admission of guilt to me ! especially around 10:30 or so !

Unfortunately, it didn't sound like an admission of guilt to me. He was remarking on how they sat there watching the collapse knowing that there were probably thousands of people dying right before their eyes. I was thinking the same thing myself at the time. While I do believe that Cheney played some key part in all of the crap that went on that day, this sadly doesn't implicate him as one would wish.

My personal theory is that filght 93 was shot down and the largest impact area was hidden so that we would not see the bullet holes in the wreckage. No need to drop parts, they had trucks. This explains the heavy parts in the lake.

Originally posted by earthdude
My personal theory is that filght 93 was shot down and the largest impact area was hidden so that we would not see the bullet holes in the wreckage. No need to drop parts, they had trucks. This explains the heavy parts in the lake.

If we just can't swallow the whole OS of Shanksville, I think they much rather we believe there 1) was a plane and 2) it was shot down to 'protect' some other 'target', a justifiable reason albeit a sad and 'necessary' one, instead of us seeing that there was no plane and start thinking something like a missile hit the ground there instead, and really start to wonder why; and start wondering why about all of the 9-11 stuff if this one part seemed such a lie.

After much thought about motive, I am believing the whole Shanksville thing was faked and staged to manipulate us into feeling the 'nobility' of the Lets Roll group and how it was better to 'fight and even die' than let those Saudis 'win' so when they moved against Iraq, we'd feel like cowards and unamerican if we didn't support their agenda and participate willingly in 'getting even'. Although why we'd invade Iraq when it was Saudis who supposedly hijacked the planes, is a bit confusing, I think.

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Still waiting on that answer.

edit on 6-9-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)

At the time of impact the port engine was at 60% power, that would be around 22,000 pounds of static thrust. Of course the plane was very dynamic at the time so the thrust would be greatly reduced, but it still should be more than enough thrust to move the engine 900 ft. I thought the answer was obvious that's why I didn't answer it.

Did you know that at the speed it was traveling, the engine would only need to remain airborne for just a little over 1 second to make it to the pond.

And so you think this is just a tapered piece of wood with a flange on each side and two access holes, and this wood is bent at each of these access holes? Interesting.

Did you notice the passenger seat cushion to the left of the logo?