Claim that UA93 engine piece recovered from pond

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sorry. Just a simple error. I thought I had accidentally changed your word. I should have gone back and checked your original post. I was using the wrong word. It was a long night. I fixed it.

cor·rob·o·rate (k-rb-rt)
tr.v. cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rates
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

col·lab·o·rate (k-lb-rt)
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates
1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.

From the syntax, it is obvious which word I intended.

Serial numbers would cor·rob·o·rate that the alleged turbofan engine laying next to the bucket was indeed from Flight 93.





[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston

 

It could not have been the stored kinetic energy of the parts because the aircraft trajectory was to the south in a different direction...

Ummm...if you had watched the video 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!

Engine spins parts away two miles distance upon impact with earth? Of course. Only on 9-11 along with all the other physics anomalies.

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

Umm weedwhacker? Indian Lake is not 90 degrees from the heading of the aircraft. It is 45 degrees. So much for your new theory.



[edit on 7/2/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
What would be the benefit of lying about where a part was found?

Are you one of those people who if they aren't given a good enough reason about why would it have been planted that it must of landed in the pond even though there's really no hard evidence that it did?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Who implies that the parts "bounced" along the ground, through trees??? Don't people realize that things will get thrown up into the air, and follow an arcing path as they fall back to the ground???

Funny the UnPopular Mechanics article didn't suggest that.

Btw, can you show us the big scar on the "soft" ground there where this engine piece bounced off of while traveling 580mph and "arched" over the wall of trees? lol

Originally posted by thedman
As Weedwacker said trremendous energy stored in aircraft at impact time
That energy has to be dissapated somehow .

And just imagine what that would do to "soft" soil!

reply to post by SPreston

Engine spins parts away two miles distance upon impact with earth? Of course. Only on 9-11 along with all the other physics anomalies.

Again, I'll repeat what the narration said. The rotating fan blade contains enough energy to toss a 'medium sized car' 100 some feet into the air.

SO, we need a physics major here to show some math, but even an ordinary person like me can understand that raising a 'medium sized car'....which is, what? 2000 pounds? Perhaps more? 100 feet into the air? This supposes directly counter to gravity, according to the narration. OK, so we have (minimum) 2000 pound car 100 feet. Now, an aluminum fan blade (for example) that is light enough that any average person can carry it easily has that much energy behind it? I wonder how far it might travel?

Umm weedwhacker? Indian Lake is not 90 degrees from the heading of the aircraft. It is 45 degrees. So much for your new theory.

Again, I only used an example as an illustration. We CANNOT know the exact attitude of the airplane, as the crash sequence progressed. We can infer, and this requires the DFDR data (as previously discussed, the heading data is not exact), the impact orientation (again, inexact) and many, many other unknowns that occur in such a chaotic event.

Sometimes precision is just not possible. It's just that with a preponderance of other supporting information the overall picture can be estimated, but never perfectly described.

A fan blade, for instance, that breaks away will have its ultimate trajectory affected by items it encounters along the way...portions of the nacelle, other parts that collide with it, many possibilities. I just think that some try to over-simplify this event, and miss all of the thousands of subtleties.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Since this is a discussion concerning UAL93, I'd like to bring something to the table to show why I feel there is very good reason to believe that UAL93 crashed as we were told.

Many will talk about the physical evidence (others will claim there was none) and that just devolves into 'he said/he said'...and NONE of us were actually there to see with our own eyes. We rely on our own interpretations, and life experience, and data as supplied by others.

I'm going to hoist this out for everyone to look at:

www.ntsb.gov...

It's been brought out before, and it deserves another thorough look.

I imagine many will immediately jump up and cry "Foul!" because it's from the NTSB...but I will suggest that it is an incredible assertion to make if anyone thinks that it's somehow faked data.

The Digital Flight Data Recorders installed on modern jets record an amazing amount of data. (Maybe too much, since it does affect the speed that everything can be copied). More than 300 different parameters are monitored...some so arcane and technical that they really only mean something who is a specialist in the particular system...but from a mere pilot's perspective, that report tells quite a story.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Since this is a discussion concerning UAL93, I'd like to bring something to the table to show why I feel there is very good reason to believe that UAL93 crashed as we were told.

No, this is a discussion about Claim that UA93 engine piece recovered from pond.

In the future, just look at the title of the threads to understand what the topics are.

reply to post by ATH911


No, THIS is what I said...

No, the fact that part of one of the engines ended up a few hundred feet from the crater is just that, a fact. And that fact hasnt changed.

And that fact still hasnt changed. Unless you are going to split hairs and say "well 900 feet is more than a few hundred feet." Too bad. That is just how I think, it drives my wife crazy when I will say the word "couple" in reference to 5 or 6.

I will thank you in advance however, to stop misquoting me.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911

 

No, THIS is what I said...

You are missing the point . . . again. I don't care how far it was. You said it was a "fact" it was found in the pond. Prove it and then explain why the story changed so much to finally ending up that just a fan blade was found in the pond from a whole engine being found in the woods that they had to tow out with a winch.

reply to post by ATH911


And again, where did I mention the word "pond"? Nowhere.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911

 

And again, where did I mention the word "pond"? Nowhere.

Oh, so now the story changes again! Tell us, what is the "fact" about this mystery engine? The story changes so much I can't keep track.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
What would be the benefit of lying about where a part was found?

Are you one of those people who if they aren't given a good enough reason about why would it have been planted that it must of landed in the pond even though there's really no hard evidence that it did?

Why bother? Do you feel the location of a part lends crediblity to a claim?

Seriously, what would be the point?

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Why bother? Do you feel the location of a part lends crediblity to a claim?

Seriously, what would be the point?

Who cares? Prove an engine part was found in the pond, or woods, or where ever it was claimed to be found!

reply to post by ATH911


You claimed I said it ended up in the pond. I have never once made that statement. Again, stop misquoting me.

reply to post by ATH911


And once again, what will you accept as evidence? A news story? A statement from a police officer? A quote from a dreaded FBI agent? WHAT?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911

 

And once again, what will you accept as evidence? A news story? A statement from a police officer? A quote from a dreaded FBI agent? WHAT?

First, why don't you tell me what the "facts" are about this mystery engine and then we can proceed to verify these facts.

Originally 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!

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

Thanks.

Originally posted by titorite

Originally posted by micpsi


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What?!?! This isn't Rumsfield land! Absence of evidence in this case means Their aint no evidence just people claiming their is.

No, it does not. It could just mean the authorities took no photos of Flight 93 debris being pulled up from the pond or that they have not released them.

reply to post by tezzajw


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?

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! Seeing an example of how an engine works, and having even a basic concept of physics that anyone who grew up on planet Earth would have, should be sufficient to understand the concepts of centripetal and centrifugal force.

I provided a video, with narration, showing an engine test to see what happens when a large fan blade lets loose...your silliness may seem cute to you, but it would not be tolerated in most segments of civilised society, and especially in a court of law, which is the game you are attempting here, it would seem.

Since I had a few minutes of time, here's a narrative to indulge you. Hope it's OK? Of course, you can claim that every example cited has no 'chain of custody', but you don't want to look foolish, do you?

This is from a discussion of a certain model engine from a different manufacturer, but the principles behind a GE-built CF6 and the P/W engines on the UAL93 accident airplane are the same.


www.upi.com...#

Uncontained failures are among the most dangerous types of jet engine malfunctions because material inside the engine can break off and penetrate the housing, also called the cowl or shroud, that contains the engine's internal components. The debris could then strike portions of the attachment holding the engine or other parts of a plane's wings, tail or fuselage.

It is just this type of in-flight failure than caused the crash of a United Airlines DC-10 during a landing at Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. In that event, a CF6 installed in the aircraft's tail experienced what former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall called "a catastrophic failure" while the plane was at 37,000 feet. During the emergency landing attempt, 111 people of the 296 aboard were killed.

"Fractured segments from the center engine's fan hub, blades and shrapnel perforated the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and severed hydraulic lines to all three hydraulic systems," Hall said during a 1997 speech in Chattanooga, Tenn., delivered four years to the day before Monday's crash.

The NTSB investigation later revealed the failure of the CF6 started with a tiny, microscopic crack in the engine's hub that occurred years before the 1989 accident. NTSB documents also showed the engine had been inspected six times before the crash and never detected. The cause of the crack, which grew to one-half inch in length by the time of the Sioux City accident, was metal fatigue.

In its analysis of the 61 CF6 uncontained failures, the FAA review stated in one variant of the engine, the CF6-50, there have been 16 events "where the debris escaped the engine case, 12 where debris escaped both the case and the nacelle, and nine where the debris escaped the entire engine area and struck other parts of the aircraft."

The other engine variant, the CF6-80C2 had experienced 16 events where "the debris escaped the engine case, six where the debris escaped both the case and nacelle, and two where the debris struck the aircraft." Nacelles are the housing that holds both the engine and its exterior casing.

Other uncontained failures involving CF6 engines include:

-An Air France Boeing 747, which sustained an uncontained failure of a CF6 when the engine was fired up at Charles de Gaulle Airport on March 24, 1996. Fractured bolts found after the incident caused the failure.

-A United Airlines DC-10, which sustained an uncontained engine failure during its take-off roll from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 1, 1995. According to an NTSB report, the flight crew heard a loud crack and successfully aborted the take-off. Later inspection revealed fractured bolts and other parts had broken off of the engine.

-A Continental Airlines DC-10 suffered a failure during takeoff from Narita International Airport in Tokyo in March 1995. NTSB's investigation revealed fragments of the CF6's turbine blades had broken off and penetrated the engine's housing.

Now, as to your silliness, please provide evidence to discredit the foregoing.

As to charts, graphs and calculations? I'll leave that to you, since apparently it's so important to your understanding. People with logical, rational thinking skills can understand the basics, without exact details being needed.

Can you?