Why Flight 93?

[Devil's Advocate]

[qimg]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-pentagon.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp1.jpg[/qimg]

So no one can tell if the engine is facing up or down? I mean, yeah. It is easy laugh and pawn stuff off when you cannot answer a question. But it becomes obvious that the only reason you would do so was to avoid the question.


And how many times are people going to talk about the smoke plume? I already said that I found the brightness/contrast a reasonable explanation. And yet people keep beating that dead horse. If people want to keep bringing it up, then show an unedited picture of a plane crashing into the ground that does not result in black smoke. Note how long your search will take.
No more edited blue hued pictures, and no more fires that are being put out or are smoldering. Be honest if you're going to do it. I see no point in the smoke plume thing, but if you want to harp on something, then do it right at least.

 

[GregoryUrich]

So no one can tell if the engine is facing up or down? I mean, yeah. It is easy laugh and pawn stuff off when you cannot answer a question. But it becomes obvious that the only reason you would do so was to avoid the question.


And how many times are people going to talk about the smoke plume? I already said that I found the brightness/contrast a reasonable explanation. And yet people keep beating that dead horse. If people want to keep bringing it up, then show an unedited picture of a plane crashing into the ground that does not result in black smoke. Note how long your search will take.
No more edited blue hued pictures, and no more fires that are being put out or are smoldering. Be honest if you're going to do it. I see no point in the smoke plume thing, but if you want to harp on something, then do it right at least.

Actually it would be interesting to know the distance from the smoke plume which would give an idea of its relative size and compare it to the pentagon. Same airplane, roughly same speed, hitting massive object.

To answer Gravy, I have questions.

 

[DGM]

So no one can tell if the engine is facing up or down? I mean, yeah. It is easy laugh and pawn stuff off when you cannot answer a question. But it becomes obvious that the only reason you would do so was to avoid the question.

That picture appears to be the center of the compressor section (towards center of the engine). Which would mean down. The thing is the engine is broken in pieces making any visual determination difficult. The picture is useless to determine anything without context. You need testimony of some one that was there at the time.

 

[Gravy]

So no one can tell if the engine is facing up or down? I mean, yeah. It is easy laugh and pawn stuff off when you cannot answer a question. But it becomes obvious that the only reason you would do so was to avoid the question.

1) It is a piece of an engine.

2) You have no idea where the piece may have been located in the crater prior to the time the photo was taken, or at what point in its removal the photo was taken.

3) Attempting to deduce the exact position of a running aircraft engine that hit the ground at 580 mph by the final resting place of one part would be foolish enough. Attempting to do so based on a photo of a part, when you know neither the history of the photo nor the possible previous location of the part, nor the dynamics or kinematics of that part's journey to its resting place, is plain nuts.

Do you understand why your question is meaningless? It's not the part that's backwards. It's your thinking.

Flight 93 hit the ground upside-down at over 500 knots. Many people saw the plane go down. Toughen up.

 

[Gravy]

Actually it would be interesting to know the distance from the smoke plume which would give an idea of its relative size and compare it to the pentagon. Same airplane, roughly same speed, hitting massive object.

As R. Mackey said, that information and much more is in this thread if you're willing to dig for it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61633

I don't know if all the graphics are still there. I know I've removed the photos I posted because my photo box here was full.

To answer Gravy, I have questions.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you believe that on 9/11/01 two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?

I'd appreciate a simple answer, please: yes, no, or undecided?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

That picture appears to be the center of the compressor section (towards center of the engine). Which would mean down. The thing is the engine is broken in pieces making any visual determination difficult. The picture is useless to determine anything without context. You need testimony of some one that was there at the time.

What are you basing that from, with regard to the engine part and location?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

As mentioned, the picture clearly shows the plane was coming from up out of the ground. Proving the "government" story is utterly absurd.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

1) It is a piece of an engine.

lol. Yeah I know, brother. But what part is it?

2) You have no idea where the piece may have been located in the crater prior to the time the photo was taken, or at what point in its removal the photo was taken.

Well, it appears the engine was being dug around. Note how low the crater drops to the right and bottom right. I do not think the time it was taken is relevant because the item is still 'stuck' into the ground.

3) Attempting to deduce the exact position of a running aircraft engine that hit the ground at 580 mph by the final resting place of one part would be foolish enough. Attempting to do so based on a photo of a part, when you know neither the history of the photo nor the possible previous location of the part, nor the dynamics or kinematics of that part's journey to its resting place, is plain nuts.

Previous location? They are digging around the engine to uncover more of it.

Do you understand why your question is meaningless? It's not the part that's backwards. It's your thinking.

No I do not understand how it would be meaningless. Oh, I see. Again I am supposed to 'fall in line' because my thinking is flawed. I do not see how there is a flaw in wondering if the engine is upside down. Based on the diagram, it appears to be. That does not mean it is, but it appears to be.
If it is, you have to wonder how it got that way.

Flight 93 hit the ground upside-down at over 500 knots. Many people saw the plane go down. Toughen up.

Toughen up?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Actually it would be interesting to know the distance from the smoke plume which would give an idea of its relative size and compare it to the pentagon. Same airplane, roughly same speed, hitting massive object.

Yes, I agree. I was talking about the color of it. Sorry, I did not mean to make it seem that I was making light of your point as far as it's diameter.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It's meaningless because the crash itself is going to place the engine in some random direction and thus the direction that the engine is uncovered would have absolutely no relation to the direction the plane was traveling.

Wonder how it got that way??

 

[Gravy]

lol. Yeah I know, brother. But what part is it?

I mentioned that because you said it was the engine. I believe it's likely parts of the IP or HP compression stages, based on their size and closely-spaced rotors. If so, then it's probably face-up, based on the direction of the turbine blade grooves (the engines turn clockwise). However, it's possible that damage has made that appearance deceptive. All of which means nothing.

Well, it appears the engine was being dug around.

1) Possibly.
2) You don't know that.
3) So what?

Previous location? They are digging around the engine to uncover more of it.

1) Possibly.
2) You don't know that.
3) So what?

If it is, you have to wonder how it got that way.

No, you have to wonder. Rational people don't.

Toughen up?

Intellectually. You're spouting woo.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's meaningless because the crash itself is going to place the engine in some random direction and thus the direction that the engine is uncovered would have absolutely no relation to the direction the plane was traveling.

Wonder how it got that way??

Really? So you're saying that as an engine goes into the ground at 500+mph, it will flip over through the ground?
I'm just making sure I understand you opinion on the matter.

 

[Gravy]

Forwards, backwards, sideways, in the woods, in the field, in the marsh down the hill. Are you catching on?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If only there could be some kind of resistance that could alter the direction of the engine or the other parts....something like...the ground...or the rest of the plane smashing in form behind, or some kind of rapidly expanding gases....

I guess we'll chalk it up to mystery...

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

The Chevrolete 'exploding gas tank' scam is a good example of why.

(snip)

It's pronounced "Chevy"; the 'rolet' is silent.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I mentioned that because you said it was the engine. I believe it's likely parts of the IP or HP compression stages, based on their size and closely-spaced rotors. If so, then it's probably face-up, based on the direction of the turbine blade grooves (the engines turn clockwise). However, it's possible that damage has made that appearance deceptive.

I guess anything is possible. However I believe it is unlikely.

1) Possibly.
2) You don't know that.
3) So what?

I think it is obvious in the photograph.
So what? Then that is the direction the engine entered the ground. If you do not see that has important, then I wonder what is important to you.

1) Possibly.
2) You don't know that.
3) So what?

See above reply to this question.

No, you have to wonder. Rational people don't.

Thanks for the laugh. Rational people don't question things? I thought rational people try to explain things using logic? And how is ignoring the engine position rational at all?

You're spouting woo.

Statements like this really bore me. Because I question the things using the evidence at hand? Saying I'm spouting 'woo' is a fallacy.
I'm not spouting anything. Again, this is further proof of a bias and singular perspective. You think I'm implying it was planted, don't you, Gravy?
That is why you falsely claim that I am spouting woo. I did not even suggest it was planted there. But I will admit that a logical reason for the engine to upside down to be challenging. (If indeed it is upside down)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's pronounced "Chevy"; the 'rolet' is silent.

Yeah...lol
I own a Chevy. But with people posting here from many parts of the world, I did not want to assume that term 'Chevy' was in common use everywhere.

 

[Gravy]

So what? Then that is the direction the engine entered the ground.

Thar he blows!

Thanks for the laugh. Rational people don't question things?

Rational people look for rational explanations for real-world events. You do the opposite.

And how is ignoring the engine position rational at all?

You either haven't read, or haven't understood, our responses telling you why the position of some engine parts in one photo is meaningless. A large portion of one engine wound up in the marsh down the hill. Therefore flight 93 landed in the marsh down the hill, right?

Statements like this really bore me. Because I question the things using the evidence at hand? Saying I'm spouting 'woo' is a fallacy.

You've been doing it since your first posts here, which I've repeatedly reminded you of. If you won't make the effort to think about the information that rational people offer you, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Okay, did airliners crash in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania on 9/11?

Yes, no, or undecided?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Rational people look for rational explanations for real-world events. You do the opposite.

I guess the engine from a plane crash is not a real world event then?
Remind me where I tried to explain how the engine was buried upside down again. Oh yeah, I didn't!

You either haven't read, or haven't understood, our responses telling you why the position of some engine parts in one photo is meaningless. A large portion of one engine wound up in the marsh down the hill. Therefore flight 93 landed in the marsh down the hill, right?

Which engine was it that ended up a half mile away? Was it part of the one that was in the crater, or the one that was not?

You've been doing it since your first posts here, which I've repeatedly reminded you of. If you won't make the effort to think about the information that rational people offer you, don't expect to be taken seriously.

All the above amounted to nothing. What rational reason has been given to explain the engine flipping over under ground? I have not seen one.

Okay, did airliners crash in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania on 9/11?
Yes, no, or undecided?

Again, you're using a story as evidence rather than using the evidence to prove your point.
The 'story' is irrelevant. What happened in NY and D.C is irrelevant. We are talking about one part of evidence here, not a chain of events.
And, saying you are being logical is false. When you start accusing me of spouting woo, you just prove you are trying to force the story and not the evidence we are talking about.
The need to label people speaks volumes about you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Saying an engine should rest in the same position it entered the hole is NOT a real world event.

How many engines have you seen hit the ground at 500mph and stayed in the exact same position as they did hitting the ground?

Things provide resistance which change the path and direction of the parts. Things like the GROUND, the rest of the plane, other debris, expanding gases. There are literally millions of variables.

But the thing is this is basic common sense, not asking questions.

So again, please show us all the plane crashes you have watched where the engines all ended up pointing in the exact direction they impacted. And this is far from impossible since it's going to be random.