Flight 93

[aggle-rithm]

I've been giving it some thought, and it has occured to me that Jammonius' contributions can be boiled down into four thoughts:

1. He believes, or claims to believe, that the generally accepted version of events on 9/11 is a "myth".

2. Any argument that supports this belief is true by default.

3. Any argument that does not support this belief is false by default.

4. Everything else is an attempt to pretend that critical thinking forms the basis of both 3 and 4, even though it is obvious that he is merely affirming what he already believes.

So, the entire voluminous collection of posts he has contributed here amounts to essentially a circular argument: It is true because he believes it is true, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.

It's really simpler than it appears. Kudos to jammonius for his considerable talents at obfuscation.

You can move along now, jammers. We've had our fun.

 

[lapman]

This thread contains factual information concerning the FBI overruling the local authroities in,

The FBI has the authority to do that. Please provide proof that this is an uncommon occurrence.

for instance,not griding the crash site so as to be able to carefully document where each piece of debris was.

Please provide proof that gridding a crash site is common when the cause of the crash is known.

The FBI determined that no such handling would be done at Shanksville.

Please provide proof that this goes against standard procedures

And, as you know, that which was said to be plane debris was returned to United.

Please provide proof that this goes against standard procedures

It is that combination of factors which had been put into the record of this thread by no later than about pg. 13 that led to the call for accountability for the FBI's botching of the Shanksville investigation.

When you provide proof that this goes against standard procedures, then we cand discuss accountability. You blather on about requirements that have no basis in reality.

Nothing of the sort was done at Shanksville. Your statement is in very sharp and very direct contrast to what lapman has said merely three posts prior. lapman claims:

"100% false. The FDR was all that was needed. Since no anomalies were found, analysis is not needed."

You are again 100% wrong. You have not provided any proof that they went against standard procedures. Your requirements have no basis in reality.

I think what you've seen and reported on agglerithm shows that thorough investigation is always needed in a proper investigation.

You are correct. However, you have failed to provide proof that it was not done at Shanksville. Your requirements have no basis in reality.

 

[BigAl]

Answers in bold

What does a Boeing 757 jet engine look like?

Something very much like this:

PICTURE:
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...org.mozilla:en-US:official&ndsp=18&tbs=isch:1

United Technologies Corp. subsidiary Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, CT produces the C-17 Globemaster III’s 40,400 pound thrust F117-PW-100 engine, a derivative of the PW2000 commercial engine that powers the Boeing 757.

[/B]

What are its specifications?

Irrelevant to this discussion.


What particular part of a Boeing 757 jet engine is claimed to be seen in the picture posted below?

People that know what they speak of will answer. Unlike you, I try not to speak fo things I don't know about.


Do you have either an FBI source or United Airlines source that says the picture is one of a jet engine?

That picture was entered into evidence in trial. The Adults know that a photo is only evidence when the person that took it testifies under oath as to where and when it was taken and that it hasn't been photoshopped. Someone can dig up the testimony and we will know the name of the agent that took the picture.

I expect you will accuse him of lying and not provide any evidence to support your claim.






thanks

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/P200060.jpg?t=1267276989[/qimg]

 

[aggle-rithm]

agglerithm,

Your post heads in the right direction. The FBI overruled the local authorities at Shanksville who were proceeding in a manner that sounds a lot like that which you describe taking place where you are. Well done.

Boy, is my face red!

It turns out that when I saw the word "Police", I just assumed it was the local police. However, when I got a closer look on my way home, I saw:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Would you like to withdraw your "well done", now that you know it's the Feds rather than the local police?

 

[jammonius]

Answers in bold

Big Al,

You certainly weren't very forthcoming in your answers to the questions I asked. You didn't even post up an actual photo of the engine of a Boeing757. You provided a link but the link is to a cut-away photo:

So, what you linked us to doesn't enable us to compare it very easily to that little piece of junk seen here:

I asked you for the specifications, meaning the length and the diameter of an engine from a Boeing 757 and you wouldn't answer.

The question I asked was: "What are its specifications?"

The answer you gave was: "Irrelevant to this discussion."

Actually, we can see in the photo above that the piece is actually quite small, smaller than that little cherry-picker that was positioned to scoop it up.

But, the actual measurements of an engine from a Boeing 757-200 are:

Length: 141.4 inches (3,592 mm)
Diameter: 78.5 inches (1,994 mm)

For purposes of scale, a 78.5 inch diameter looks like this:

Posters, the piece of junk shown in that photo from the Moussaoui trial cannot be said to be from a jet engine, absent a whole lot of explaining, something that has not ever been done.

Of course, photo comparisons, when done in the message board context are almost always inconclusive. People are going to see what they want to see. That is not the point. I can imagine that posters here will go to great lengths to find some way to say the piece of junk in the Moussaoui trial exhibit is a jet engine, even though the prosecution made no such claim. The point is that the prosecution in the Moussaoui trial did not say Exhibit P20060 was a jet engine and did not have to prove what the photo supposedly shows. Hence, at best, the photo is inconclusive.

 

[carlitos]

delete

 

[DGM]

Actually, we can see in the photo above that the piece is actually quite small, smaller than that little cherry-picker that was positioned to scoop it up.

But, the actual measurements of an engine from a Boeing 757-200 are:

Length: 141.4 inches (3,592 mm)
Diameter: 78.5 inches (1,994 mm)



.

What is the diameter of the "core" section of the engine. You really don't have a clue.

 

[Arus808]

nice that you can't even post the picture of the actual engine used in a 757, seeing that you dont even know what type of engine is used. Of course you can provide a source for your "cut away" artist render instead of a real engine right?

 

[carlitos]

The artist rendering is from here.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/

eta - one of these.

ENG_F117-PW-100.jpg 05-Sep-2008 11:48 3.9K
ENG_F117-PW-100_Cutaway.jpg 05-Sep-2008 11:48 6.5K
ENG_F117_PW-100.jpg 05-Sep-2008 11:48 7.0K
ENG_F117_PW-100_lg.jpg

 

[beachnut]

Complete ignorance of a Jet Engine. Where do 911 truther think the fan section is? How can 911 truth be so ignorant on everything?

Now 911 truth knows what a fan engine looks like when it hits the ground at 600 mph.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Don't tell anyone in 911 truth how fast the engine turns.

Kind of sick, 911 truth does not take the serial number of a person, DNA, as proof they were murdered and makes up lies to apologizes for terrorists; ignorance and disrespect define 911 truth cult members. 8 years of failure and failed ideas.


Flt 93, Engine manufacturer Pratt & WhitneyType PW2037

 

[DGM]

nice that you can't even post the picture of the actual engine used in a 757, seeing that you dont even know what type of engine is used. Of course you can provide a source for your "cut away" artist render instead of a real engine right?

The "cut-away" posted would be very much like the Rolls Royce RB-211 engines on the 757. The piece in question would most likely be from the very sturdy compressor "core" making it about the right size. The large "fan" (and cowling) on the front of the engine would be the first thing to be destroyed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's my understanding that Boeing does not make the engines, only the airframe. The choice of engine is up to the airline purchasing the plane...so there's no guarantee that the engine shown is the same one that was on flight 93.

 

[DGM]

After I made my post about the engine I started to question myself, I know that American had Rolls Royce RB-211 engines for it's 757 fleet but, now I seem to remember that United used Pratt & Whitney PW2000's. Not that it matters they both look about the same but. does anyone know for sure which United used?

 

[TJM]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-2

 

[DGM]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-2

Thanks, Maybe I should listen to the voices in my head.

 

[TJM]

Thanks, Maybe I should listen to the voices in my head.

Nah, we need you on our side.

 

[TJM]

Some of the problem probably lies with the troofer's inability to conceal evidence. Take the murky, unfocussed image they try to present as evidence:

Sharpen it up a bit:

Hubcaps anyone?

 

[dropzone]

I know about how big the scoop on a backhoe is and it's well in front of that "hubcap." This would make it big enough to be a "hubcap" for a tractor trailer, or even a tractor, and they don't have hubcaps.

Well, they do, but they are little 6" things that only cap the, er, hub, not the whole wheel.

 

[sylvan8798]

You can look at the picture and call it what YOU like; but you CANNOT say that anyone in authority who had a duty to analyze the picture has called what is seen a jet engine, let alone a jet engine from a Boeing 757.

Ahem. How did they know to dig it up and take pictures of it if someone didn't identify it as part of the plane?

Duh.

 

[sylvan8798]

The above is the single densest post I have seen. What part of "you can't presume passengers in Shanksville without proving a jetliner they were on crashed there?" do you have difficulty understanding?

Look, you are not going to get away with jumping to the issue of passengers without proving a jetliner crashed in the first place.

Do you get it yet?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is analogous to:

Prosecutor: "we found the victim's body in the woods"

Defense: "you can't jump to the victim without proving how he got there."

Prosecutor: "where did YOU go to law school?"

The presence of the victims at the site can stand alone as evidence. Considerable care was taken to collect, document, and verify the remains. YOU don't accept that because it doesn't fit with your pet "theory".