The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby Equinox on December 5th, 2011, 5:28 am

Image

Officials told us that both engines from Flight 93 were recovered after it allegedly crashed.


(Well, sort of.)

One of the engines was photographed being recovered from the crater at the scene.
Image

The other was reportedly found in the woods behind the crater, or in the pond.
Image

Confused?

Don't worry, that's what happens when a story doesn't add up.


Let's start with the engine allegedly found in the woods, or in the pond, or wherever it was supposedly found.

First, it was reported that a "whole engine" was found at a "considerable distance from the crash site."
Image
(Flight 93 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines.)

One report said this massive engine was found 600 yards from the crater.
Image
And got there by "bouncing" off the ground.

Then it was changed from a whole engine, to a 1,000 pound piece of it found far from the crash and to the west of it.
Image
They reportedly had to haul this engine out of the woods with a bulldozer.

And who was it that reportedly hauled this engine out of the woods?

You guessed it!

Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.


Then the story changes again in which now a section of the engine was found in a catchment pond just south of the crater.

This section supposedly was an engine fan.

(or was it a piece of fuselage?)

But regardless of whatever was supposedly found in the water, it was reported that they recovered whatever they did in the woods BEFORE they even searched the pond!



Update:
Four Flight 93 victims identified
Saturday, September 22, 2001

"Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.

Yesterday, investigators drained a two-acre pond about 1,000 feet from the crater where the jetliner slammed into the ground, just another step in hunting airliner parts, personal belongings and remains, Miller said." - post-gazette.com


But let's skip all the major inconsistencies of where this engine was found and assume a piece of it was found in the pond.

The pond is about 300 yards south of the crater.
Image

Remember that Flight 93 was said to have crashed at 580mph into the ground at a 40deg angle.

There appears to be markings in the crater of where the two engines from Flight 93 supposedly hit.

(I guess.)

Remember that the ground was said to be "soft & loose" and that's why, they say, most of the plane was able to burrow deep underground.

So if Flight 93 hit this "soft" ground at nearly 600mph and at a 40deg angle then why did one of its massive engines that weighs almost 10,000 lbs burrow underground and the other one just bounced off?

Also, do any of these “engine marks” in the ground even look like marks made from 10,000-pound engines plowing nearly 600mph into the ground at a 40deg angle?
Image
But if these marks were caused by Flight 93’s engines plowing into the ground, how did one not only manage to escape, but tumble so far from the crash?

But let's just assume for a second that its engine (or massive fan) did bounce off the ground after impact.

Could it have tumbled 300 yards after crashing?

Officials say so and I would actually agree.

However, what I am wondering is, whether it was an entire engine, or one of its massive fans, how in the world did it manage to tumble into the pond with this 70ft wall of trees in the way?

Image


Image

But if some part of an engine was found in the pond, who's to say it wasn't just planted there?

Isn't it just a little too coincidental that of all the places a piece of a plane's hot engine would be found is in the cold water of a pond?

So if the perps planted a heavy engine part in the pond, how did they get it there without being noticed?

Image

Now that you're probably curious as to what was actually found in the pond (or woods for that matter) we can probably identify what this mystery part was by the photos taken of it at the scene:

Image

Did you see it?

No?

That's because officials never took any, or at least never released any.

Hmm, kinda weird they never showed us any photos of this large piece from Flight 93 that was reportedly recovered from the pond, or found in the woods.

(or was it found in the bushes???)

So what about the engine seen being excavated from the crater in that photo that wasn't released until 4 1/2 years after 9/11?

Is it from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engine, the kind Flight 93 had?

Image

Kinda hard to tell since it's so smashed up.

But let's assume it is for the sake of argument.

The obvious first question about this engine is why is it only a few feet under the surface when officials said the black boxes were recovered 15ft & 25ft underground?

Image
Also, doesn't this engine look kind of old and rusted?

Right about now it should start becoming obvious that this is a planted engine scrap.

But planted how and when?

There was a person living in a cottage right around the corner and there is a scrap yard right up the street in plain view.


Image
How were the perps able to plant such an engine scrap without being noticed?

Seems unlikely that they dug up the field and planted it before the "crash".

So realistically, the perps would have to have planted it sometime afterwards.

But how could they have done that with so many responders stationed at the scene?

Image


Well, it helps when the piece of debris you are planting fits neatly in the equipment you are "excavating" it with!

Image


They just used one of their excavators at the scene and simply lowered it down for a nice little photo-op.

Didn't you notice the engine scrap was small enough to fit in the backhoe bucket?

Image


And that no dirt is caked on it after supposedly burrowing down "soft soil" at nearly 600mph?!

And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.

Image

Image


And if it can’t get more obvious the perps threw little pieces of shiny aluminum in the crater to try to make their staged photo-op look more real.
Image

When will they learn that United Airlines planes are not silver, but dark blue and grey?
Image

But you can’t blame them for trying.

I mean, what are you supposed to do when you have to excavate a hole with no plane in it?
Image
Image
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 561
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby whatsgoingon on December 5th, 2011, 6:28 am

Equinox wrote:Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"
by icarusinbound » December 4th, 2011, 6:08 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:
The other idea to check on is the footage showing that fireball people call the "engine" and whether that parabola is the one we are talking about. This would be a hard task to do but perhaps worth a look. I think it is hard to critique that parabola photographed because we'd need 3D perspective to be able to say anything meaningful.

http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

Can you subtend the declination from this??? Or is it too short to give a line for intercept...remembering the alleged descent path must be below the straight-line tangent from that point


Image

Good show.

I am busy now with a small trip but I promise to look at the trig on this crazy image of the flying/burning engine. What is burning BTW? Jet fuel? :lol:

But you would need to estimate the height of that engine to see if the angle was plausible. Another great piece of data would be the time is seconds after impact. If we knew the exact time in fractions of a sec or seconds then we would know the exact height of the object. Is there a time lapse of that engine flight path?

I think the amazing thing about the pedestrian signal "WALK / DO NOT WALK" yellow boxes on the lamp post is that the darn thing is attached still, since the "MURRAY ST" and "ONE WAY" signs both of them were stripped off the post upon "impact" :lol: Maybe that detachment of the pipe is a cue that the pedestrian signal is half attached. :lol:
whatsgoingon
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby whatsgoingon on December 5th, 2011, 6:43 am

Equinox wrote:Image


Great little story here, Equinox.

I believe that the field was owned by a defunct coal mining firm. So how hard would it have been to plant explosives at the site to make the initial gash. Also planting parts in the water is easy to do. I like your idea that the engine could fit in a scoop of the back-hoe equipment. Very good.

The engine should have taken a dead cat bounce -- not a massive leap in the air. Bounced are also parabolic. Nothing would bounce like that. :lol: Is the ground rubber or something?

Seems that Jet engines were a nasty detail to present in a believable manner all around.

It is hard to make a planeless disaster have believable engine parts, eh?
whatsgoingon
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby Equinox on December 5th, 2011, 9:50 am

I Have downloaded the pics and posts and then re-uploaded the pics and comments as a permanent hystorical record and archive for this important thread on staged fake plane parts. Couple more on the way. B)
Last edited by Equinox on December 5th, 2011, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 561
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby reel.deal on December 5th, 2011, 12:46 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
reel.deal
Member
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby simonshack on December 5th, 2011, 3:15 pm

*
My all-time favourite "PLANE PART evidence" is that tire seen lying below the WTC, lodged into a steel section landed beside the St. Nicholas church (a poor little Greek Orthodox chapel which got crushed by the towers). NOTE THAT THE TOWERS HAVEN'T COLLAPSED YET - so that pretty large WTC1 section must have been ...uh... punched out by that purported 'landing gear' tire ! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Those absurdly silly 9/11 images inspired me to put together an ad for that mighty product known as the...

FIRESTONE DEMOLITION TIRES


Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 4462
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby simonshack on December 5th, 2011, 4:50 pm

*
But of course, the one and only video we have of the WTC1 impact is that horridly doctored clip credited to the Naudet brothers - which has been exposed as a fraud in every imaginable way. NO other image exists of that 8:46AM timeline (apart from Pavel Hlava's atrociously blurry long-distance video clip "shot from his car") - and much less do we have any 8:46AM images from the south side of WTC1 (where that FIRESTONE DEMOLITION TIRE made ravages...)

So let's see what we have from the impact moment at WTC2. What exactly do we see exiting the north face of WTC2 - in the available 9/11 images? And is it consistent from image to image? The answer to this is: No.

Here we see a white blob (leaving NO white smoketrail) exiting the WTC2:
Image

Here we see the white blob (leaving NO white smoketrail) preceded by a superfast black blob:
SLOW MOTION:____________________________________"REAL" SPEED
ImageImage

But of course...as has been much debated in the past (when we still thought that SOME of the 9/11 imagery might be real) the black blob is not meant to be debris but must be...uh, let's say... just a fly-by pigeon (scared shitless by the impact sound)... :rolleyes:
Image
This is a typical 'teaser' inserted in the computer-animated imagery for us 'conspiracy theorists' (and assorted birdwatchers) to chew on - much like the infamous 'squibs' seen puffing out of the towers in the collapse animations, to make us all go: "LOOK; LOOK! 'Tis a controlled demolition, folks!" In this case, it made us go: "LOOK; LOOK! 'Tis a missile!"

Image
Image
Image
Image


And here's the horrid shot credited to one "Clifton Cloud"- pretty useless for our current purpose to compare what is SEEN exiting the WTC2 in the various available WTC2 impact imagery. But please do note that the north faces of the WTC are both in full shade here - as opposed to the above image samples. This fact alone disqualifies (at least one of the two WTC2 impact videos) as being real images shot on 9/11 :
(NOTE also Clifton Cloud's marvellous rock'n'rolling smokeplume! :lol: :lol: :lol: )

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqiEx-42uys


But, perhaps you're all tired to look at this God-awful, low-resolution video imagery the 9/11 perps offered ?
So let's have a look at this "high-resolution still-photo" canvas as published by SIPA press. Lovely, isn't it?...
Image
Let's try and pretend for a second that this roaringly funny plastic image has any sort of relation to a real photograph.
Note the distinct white smoketrail soaring down to the Manhattan streets (no doubt, towards the Church/Murray intersection, yah?). So did the white blob (seen in the above image samples) develop a smoketrail AFTER having flown that parabolic trajectory? A DELAYED white smoketrail?

Yah - Rrright. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 4462
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby whatsgoingon on December 5th, 2011, 7:13 pm

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0ZaXCat0PCCNjMzYTYwZDEtZmQxOC00MTQ2LTg1YzItYzY2ZDA4MDYzOGQ5

That is a trajectory based on the landing site.

The inconsistent smoke trail is a joke, since it appears in only certain photos.

My critique of the above photo is that the flat part of the trajectory lasts too long. At the speed I estimate for the horizontal movement -- it should take 1 sec to go the width of the WTC2. Call it 40-50 m/s.

The angle should be roughly 55 degrees midflight. Angle made with ground and engine flight path.

But I agree overall many other problems exist with the plane parts. I just imagined that the physics was going to be terrible too. We need to get a look at the height of the other buildings that were cleared too to wrap this up.
whatsgoingon
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby whatsgoingon on December 5th, 2011, 7:21 pm

reel.deal wrote:Image

Image
wastebasket guy dont care 'bout no jet engine' or gettin' yellow-taped for CSI,
he just waitin' round all day long til the sun sets on pizza parlour...

:P


Wastebasket guy is pasted in all the pictures. He guards de place. So no one gets that engine. He probably is a cut and paste. :lol:

Nice eye. Notice the wording on the pizza shop is not consistent either. Hard to believe that lettering as well.
whatsgoingon
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby icarusinbound on December 5th, 2011, 7:52 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0ZaXCat0PCCNjMzYTYwZDEtZmQxOC00MTQ2LTg1YzItYzY2ZDA4MDYzOGQ5

That is a trajectory based on the landing site.
.......... I just imagined that the physics was going to be terrible too. We need to get a look at the height of the other buildings that were cleared too to wrap this up.
Excellent document whatsgoingon, thanks!

SmokingGunII wrote:
Icarusinbound: There are a few websites that are very useful in determining Manhattan building heights, 100 Church St is listed here:
http://www.emporis.com/building/100chur ... ity-ny-usa
SmokingGunII, thank-you for that- and it puts 100 Church at 69.8m. If I estimate the north face of 100 Church as being at the 250m mark, that puts the theoretical roof-clearance at ~110-69.8=40.2m. Which is a lot higher than I'd expected...but the curve looks totally reasonable, I suppose.

But this is of course cannot take account the tumbling that would theoretically occur, due to wind resistance for what would be a very non-aerodynamic object, to do that test we'd need Jamie and Adam with a trebuchet. The engine part is like a giant low-kinetic snub-round: I wonder if it yielded/gave way when the lights changed??

And an obvious thought....if you were Joe Public, wandering on Church, would you casually stand and stare and chew gum beside what looks like a giant smoking landmine perhaps filled with aviation fuel, whilst WW3 may be commencing behind you?? Or maybe even make a phonecall, from that street kiosk only feet away (like the possible one-legged man)?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 264
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby Heiwa on December 5th, 2011, 8:07 pm

OK, an airplane slices into the south wall of the south tower WTC2 at 500 mph and stops inside except one engine and one landing gear wheel, which continue through the north wall + smoke trails and the engine lands as shown above in a crowded street and nobody gets hurt. All jet fuel arriving at 500 mph also stops inside tower high up, ignites and produces a FIREBALL! Soon after NYPD arrives and fences off the engine landing area, while people continues walking around, buying (eating!) pizzas, phoning, shopping, etc. I like the fat mama walking in the middle of the street prior fencing off. She hasn't eating cooked food for years, just chips and chips, etc. and is too busy to observe action around her. An average US observer?
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 908
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby reel.deal on December 5th, 2011, 11:18 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
Member
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby HonestlyNow on December 6th, 2011, 12:43 am

Notice the wording on the pizza shop is not consistent either. Hard to believe that lettering as well.
The length of the banner/awning has been shortened, also, and even though both pics were taken from the same position, the pizza building looks slightly smaller/further away (based on what can be seen on the cropped inset image).

. . .if you were Joe Public, wandering on Church, would you casually stand and stare and chew gum beside what looks like a giant smoking landmine perhaps filled with aviation fuel, . . .
He's casually huffing (abusing inhalants)!!
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 189
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby icarusinbound on December 6th, 2011, 1:15 am

HonestlyNow wrote:
Notice the wording on the pizza shop is not consistent either. Hard to believe that lettering as well.
The length of the banner/awning has been shortened, also, and even though both pics were taken from the same position, the pizza building looks slightly smaller/further away (based on what can be seen on the cropped inset image).

Note that sections of scaffolding to the rear of the picture backing on to Murray Street, including a cross-spar, flick in-and-out of 'reality'....as does the lower yellow mounting for the DON'T/WALK sign...there's also something odd happening down on the side of the Permanent Pizza Parlour, on Church....like a Western Union sign that comes and goes, in the .gif sequence.

There's also something else I've thought of...the localised debris, scattered on the road and presumably the sidewalk. Within the scenario, it will all have detached on impact, and rolled/bounced outwards from the main impact point (did I see a bizarre tarmac-not-paving-slabs 'sidewalk cracked' shot somewhere on the net?? now not sure). This would almost be the air accident investigation equivalent of a blood spatter pattern (or should that be hydraulic fluid??). Or perhaps it was starting to fall apart, just prior to....impact. And that large plate/flange-disk on the road, maybe it fell beside the main lump, like the blade of a scythe...and took-out the signs, also neatly severing the upper yellow mounting bracket. This becomes metaphysics- or even just more metaphysical.
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 264
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby whatsgoingon on December 6th, 2011, 5:30 am

My dear new friends, I would also say that one other annoyance is apparent here. The FBI seems to be using a lot of Yellow Police Tape. That extra diagonal tape takes the cake. Can you imagine the prop engineer? Clearly these were not the days of austerity for the props team. Today we are told by our leaders that we all need to cut back -- austerity is here. They were instructed instead to gratuitously over-engineer the yellow tape to make up for the fact that the other props guys got the wrong engine and the site does not even look faintly like an engine crashed into it.

I think a 5-year-old boy could hang yellow police tape more effectively. They have an entire scaffolding to work from there. :lol:
whatsgoingon
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 digital simulation exposed

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iCONOCLAST and 3 guests