Engine planted at Shanksville

[bushatbooker]

Ha, they just lowered it in to take a photo of it!

I always wondered why this engine piece was only a couple feet underground while the flight recorders located in the tail were said to have burrowed much deeper!

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/01/planted-engines-at-shanksville.html

[Bolo Boffin]

1. So you're not even going to hide that you're Killtown any more.

Thank God that they left the bucket right there in the picture so you could figure it out.

All it would have taken is ten seconds to move that bucket out of the way, too!

Still using the murder of a beautiful young woman to spread your lies?

[sabbat hunter]

7. he is gone

so he wont be able to respond back. wonder if he will return again under a different name?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=191159


but that post of killtowns/bushatbooker is ridiculous. how does he know the "just planted it there" what evidence is there for that?

i mean jeez

[spooked911]

10. evidence:

1) this heavy engine only went one foot underground when the black boxes went 15 and 25 feet under

2) the engine is tilted the wrong way for the official crash scenario

[greyl]

2. Check this out:

www.myspace.com/killtown911

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. Ha!

That is great

[salvorhardin]

8. Hah!

"Roxdog Gives me a Raging Clue"

[Big Pappa]

3. First

that is not the entire engine. What you are looking at is the compressor section of a turbofan engine. Newer engines use a first stage fan system to get more thrust. The fan section is usually much larger than the compressor and rotor section. The fan section not being as dense as the other sections probably disintegrated upon impact, Turbine Engines:


leaving the more dense compressor mostly intact.

[Big Pappa]

4. Here

www.abbysenior.com/aviation/turbine.htm

[MervinFerd]

5. Funny. nt

[spooked911]

9. the engine is tilted the wrong way for the official crash

but I know none of you could care less about inconsistencies like that

[Bolo Boffin]

11. What??

Tilted the wrong way? How do you get that? Is there a physical law in the universe that determines exactly how engines must land in the ground when part of a horrific high-speed crash?

[spooked911]

12. well, normally, yes

the plane was supposedly coming from the north and crashed at a 45 degree angle

the engine should be tilted 45 degrees to the north but its tilted to the south

also it makes no sense why the engine would have burrowed much deeper into the ground

[Bolo Boffin]

13. "normally"?? From what standard are you deriving your norm?

This ranks among the looniest things I've seen you publish here, spooked911, and that includes both of your bunny cage experiments.

By what law of physics must some huge piece of aircraft maintain the original angle of impact wherever it might land? Would you even take a moment to actually listen to yourself every now and again?

And how far is that piece of engine from where it originally struck? Could it be that it forced its way through several feet of earth to land where it did, i.e., at an angle under the ground? As far as we know it could have traveled twenty feet under the ground to end up in that position.

[MervinFerd]

14. Actually, "20 miles of steel; where'd they go?" Ranks as the loopiest claim...

ever.

Spooked didn't make it, if I remember right. But, I bet he would like it.

[Big Pappa]

15. Kinda like

using steel beams as a combustible material.

[greyl]

16. a gentle reminder

[spooked911]

18. Let's quit with the ad hominems, shall we?

If the plane burrowed/wedged itself into the ground, I would expect
1)the engines to be burrowed further into the ground than seen here
2)the engine to maintain something of its original trajectory

I would NOT expect the engine to go tumbling around in the earth-- it should maintain it's original penetration angle

Are you saying the engine burrowed twenty feet underground-- sideways? Do you really think that is plausible?

[greyl]

19. I don't see any.

Let's quit with the ridiculous arguments.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Spooked

Why do you think the engine "should maintain it's original penetration angle"?

What possible force exists that keeps engines from tumbling in a high-speed plane crash?

Why do you think that the engine could not have "burrowed twenty feet underground-- sideways"?

[spooked911]

21. I already explained the first one and the second--

being injected into the ground by the force of the crash should have kept the engine at its original angle.

The ground is much denser than air and will keep the engine from "tumbling"

As far as this--"burrowed twenty feet underground-- sideways"-- I was trying to figure out your point. Are you saying the engine tumbled for twenty feet above ground and then wedged itself into the soil? What is YOUR scenario?

I am assuming the engine would have gone into the earth as soon as the plane hit the ground and that the engine would maintain its original trajectory as it entered the ground.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. No, you have not.

being injected into the ground by the force of the crash should have kept the engine at its original angle.

This is not an explanation of why an engine cannot tumble when striking the ground at a high rate of speed. There is NO TELLING exactly how the engine might have acted at that point. An argument based on angle at rest is LUDICROUS.

The engine might have tumbled above ground and then wedged itself under the ground. It might have tumbled under the ground to the point where it was found. It might have bounced, tumbled, gone underground, tumbled some more, out and in again before stopping. THERE IS NO TELLING.

I am assuming the engine would have gone into the earth as soon as the plane hit the ground and that the engine would maintain its original trajectory as it entered the ground.

Yes, you are. You have no reason to make those assumptions other than they allow you to claim that the engine was planted - that every person involved in the making of this picture is involved in the faking of this crash scene. You have no physical reason for making those assumptions.

[jberryhill]

25. What makes you believe

That this is a photograph of the engine in-situ as found?

Considering that the earth is dug out from underneath the part shown in the photo, and that there is a mechanical shovel right next to it, I can't fathom why anyone thinks this is a photograph of where the engine was found, rather than a photograph of where the engine part was simply photographed.

I'd like an explanation of how someone ran out there with a huge chunk of metal and buried it there without being noticed.

[Andre II]

17. Maybe I'm a bit slow today ...

but wasn't the engine found somewhere else?????


It was found 2000 yards away. http://web.archive.org/web/20021113183810/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=323958

But Trooper John F. Marshall said himself:
"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."
http://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html

And the FBI is quoted stating vaguely that the engine “was found "a considerable distance" from the crater.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/local/2001/11/15/SHOT15c.html


Lots of differences but nowhere does anybody say it was found in the crater.
What exactly does the photo show???

[spooked911]

22. One engine supposedly flew 2000 feet (2000 yards?), the other went in the ground

But the OCTers don't seem to find this remarkable.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. the plane had TWO engines! (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

26. That's two -alleged- engines.

If it was towed to the site by a Romulan cruiser, it wouldn't actually need engines.

Seems like they would plant them with the plane, but, hey, you know Romulans!