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.
Originally posted by micpsi
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
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.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
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."
Originally posted by thedman
Fan broke off on impact
and ROLLED in direction plane was traveling from impact point coming to rest in the catch basin
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.
posted by ATH911
It rolled through that tall/thick wall of trees that are in the way?
Not looking good for skeptics.
Ooooops? Three turbofan engines on a 757? That should be a Guiness first.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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) ...
It could not have been the stored kinetic energy of the parts because the aircraft trajectory was to the south in a different direction...