And your point for posting is? Can you ID it? I love how you think it's OK to ignore evidence.
It's not evidence. You think it's evidence because you're looking for anomalies. Try think logically for one second. Let's assume you're right, and the engine is pointing upwards. So what? What is that proof of? That the crash site was fake? That the aircraft emerged out of the ground? Both of these suggestions are patently absurd.
You assume two things, when you claim this engine piece is evidence:
1) That the engine is pointed upside down
You lack the expertise to determine this, you lack the data to determine this, and you provide no evidence to support your contention, other than "I think".
2) That a crash as described by the official account would not result in 1)
Again, you lack the expertise to assert this, you lack the data to demonstrate this, and you provide no evidence to support your contention other than "I think."
You did not even see a break in the tree line and it's plain as day. But you're an expert and video analysis! Or not. Obviously not.
Wrong, you
think it's a break in the treeline, because you don't understand what you're looking at. Trees are not uniform height, and neither is ground. What you think is a break in the treeline is nothing more than a drop in the ground, resulting in lower tree levels. You'll note that the so-called "break" does not extend to ground level. The ground falls away west of the crash site. This photographs reflects that fall-away.
You have
still not addressed the fact that the terrain behind your so called break does not reflect the actual terrain behind the actual break, namely a short band of trees, followed by an open stretch of ground, followed by a pond, in which one of UA93's engines was found. The position from which the shot was taken (be it your position or mine) is much higher ground than the surrounding terrain. We should see the open ground and the pond. We do not.
You
also have not addressed major problems with your positioning in terms of the camera's focal length, and in terms of the practical reality of a television news crew being allowed to wander all over a crime scene.
Yeah, into a building where other sources of smoke are burning.
Wrong. Nothing was on fire in WTC2 when UA175 hit. You have been shown images of the smoke from the initial fireball of UA175's impact. Some of those images depict smoke very much like the colour of the UA93 smoke plume.
Have you shown ANY aircraft impacts with the ground that did not have black smoke as a result? No. So do it, or drop it. Only one person tried to show one of a plane hitting the ground. It was obviously edited. I wonder why it had to be edited? You provide nothing.
Well you have demanded immediate post-impact smoke plumes from a jet fuel explosion of a high speed airliner crash into the ground. I would be surprised if any other image in existence fits the ridiculously narrowly defined conditions you have made. It's akin to Conspiracy Theorists who say "Find me a steel 110 storey skyscraper with the same structure as the WTC that has collapsed from fire". It's nonsense. The cause of the smoke plume is irrelevant. Smoke plumes have been shown to appear a wide range of colours from different vantage points and cameras. The SAME smoke plume. Thus, one cannot determine anything about the nature of a smoke plume from one image. This is incredibly straight forward. It does not require an example of a scenario that exactly reflects UA93's crash.
And you do? Please enlighten us all with your 'knowledge'.
I don't need to. I'm not the one making the claim. GregoryUrich is. It's up to him to provide the evidence. I do know enough to understand that the crater we see is certainly plausible given the crash trajectory. That is not to say that GregoryUrich's version isn't also plausible. But that's not what he's saying. He's saying
only his version is plausible. That means the accepted version is wrong. That means he has to provide evidence. Simply asserting "it should be like this" is not good enough. It's not a case of explaining how it
might have turned out differently. He has to explain why it
cannot have happened the way the accepted account details.
He has failed to do that. Until he does that, his assertions are worthless.
Who said it was shot down? Not me. I said I thought about the possibility of a shoot down, but that does not mean I believe it was.
You have been presented with ample evidence here that demonstrates a shoot down is not a possibility. Yet you continue with your assertions, in the face of reality. That is not the sign of someone "examining other possibilities". That is the sign of someone who has made up their mind, and will not be swayed by the facts.
On the CVR, what is the "sound of loud air noise" that keeps popping up?
Since neither of us have heard the CVR (and neither of us ever will), and since the "sound of loud air noise" does not appear on the official NTSB CVR transcript, neither of us are in a position to comment on it. There are countless explanations for "sound of loud air noise". Many of them indeed do not even involve air at all.
Us? Speak for yourself. Why you trying to direct 'the team' away?
I was speaking for myself. My opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's and no one here will go "away" simply because I "directed" them too.
You've demonstrated a total disregard for the substantial evidence presented here. You argue from positions of ignorance and personal incredulity. When all else fails you insult people. I am of the opinion that those offering to assist in your "examining other explanations" are wasting their time, as you have no interest in anything except your own preconceived notions.
-Gumboot
