• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

femr2 said:
Well, that would include gumboot above, which is a bit rude/naive of you perhaps ?

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.
Click to expand...

Appaenly not. So what?

What answer would be your "worst case" in terms of what conclusions you would make?
 
So where are those reports which show it ended up far away from the crash scene, twoofer?
 
femr2 said:
Well, that would include gumboot above, which is a bit rude/naive of you perhaps ?

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.

The most sensible option would seem to be as in the linked post above, but obviously confirmation would be necessary.

By all means carry on with affronted tones. I'll look forward to someone actually posting the confirmed and correct information, most preferrably from an appropriate official source.
Click to expand...

No, it's rude of you to dishonor the memory of those that died onboard Flt. 93.

It's because you're looking for disinformation from 1 of your pals/friends who are Truthers & you love to ignore the information that's been given to you.

Why need a link when I'm the closet person on this forum (besides someone I know who also lives near Shanksville) that's been to Shanksville countless times & knows that what you claim is total horse****?

Keep on dreaming that 1 day you'll get a Truther on this forum who has the evidence to prove what you claim is "right". Good luck searching for a ghost!

To Gumboot, don't worry about the 900 lb. engine. As far as anyone's concerned that engine hit pretty hard into hard soil. So what Femr2's suggesting is that the 900 lb. engine remained intact & "fell" into Indian Lake is an outright lie.
 
Last edited:
Fraud

femr2 said:
By far the most sensible response so far.

The school playground posts from others are also interesting, but obviously for very different reasons.

So, a ~900lb chunk of engine a distance away.

I assume there is an official report somewhere which would confirm the location that piece was found ? I have not been able to find it if it exists. Anyone know if that can be confirmed ?
Click to expand...

Rizla/Femr the fraud.....I like how you simply avoid the fact that you have zero understanding of even elementary level physics and move on in your usual self contradicting idiotic manner.

so, tell me hero...what do you think impacted in Shanksville if not for Flight 93, and what evidence do you have to support your hairbrained uneducated hypothesis?


Shhhhhhh----listen to the silence
 
Somebody wake me when femr2 stops posting on internet forums and actually convinces somebody who can DO something about it that 911 was an inside job.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
To Gumboot, don't worry about the 900 lb. engine. As far as anyone's concerned that engine hit pretty hard into hard soil. So what Femr2's suggesting is that the 900 lb. engine remained intact & "fell" into Indian Lake is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

That's not what I said. A 900lb part of one of the engines - in this case a fan section - was recovered from a catchment basin (at the centre of which is a small body of water - a pond) about 300yds SE of the impact site. This isn't something Conspiracy Theorists made up. It was reported in numerous media outlets and confirmed by Jeff Reinbold of the National Park Service - the man responsible for the Flight 93 Memorial.

What conspiracy theorists did was

A) Accept the erroneous media reports that it was an entire engine, without noticing the small discrepancy that a Pratt and Whitney PW2043 engine weighs over 3 tonne, thus making it clear the recovered object was not an entire engine but more like 10% of one.

B) Conclude that the engine was recovered from Indian Lake because reports stated that debris was recovered from the lake and a superfluous scan of Google Earth might not identify the smaller ponds located substantially closer to the crash site.
 
For what it's worth, a Pratt and Whitney PW2000 series engine weighs approximately 3300 kg intact, more if you include the inlet and shroud. A 900 pound fragment is probably no more than a piece of the core, perhaps only the high temperature section.

Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.
 
R.Mackey said:
Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.
Click to expand...

Never anything to see here.

Femr2/RIZLA brought nothing and left. Same ****, different day.
 
R.Mackey said:
For what it's worth, a Pratt and Whitney PW2000 series engine weighs approximately 3300 kg intact, more if you include the inlet and shroud. A 900 pound fragment is probably no more than a piece of the core, perhaps only the high temperature section.

Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.
Click to expand...

A piece of the core is the scant information I was able to find, but when you find out anything accurate and verified, rather than guesswork and probables, then I'm all ears.

Nothing to see is absolutely true, because nobody seems to actually have any verifiable answers.

A 900lb engine core piece in the *pond* suggested by gumboot (now a fan section) isn't a problem.

Guesswork and probables are though.
 
femr2 said:
A piece of the core is the scant information I was able to find, but when you find out anything accurate and verified, rather than guesswork and probables, then I'm all ears.

Nothing to see is absolutely true, because nobody seems to actually have any verifiable answers.

A 900lb engine core piece in the *pond* suggested by gumboot (now a fan section) isn't a problem.

Guesswork and probables are though.
Click to expand...


Thats rich from the master of guesswork and probables who does nothing but speculate and JAQ off. Predictable. Silly pod theorist.
 
BigAl said:
What possible answer could change the fact that Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed into that field by 4 or 5 Islamist Arabs?
Click to expand...

But why did the plane suddenly crash into the field? What kept the hijackers from completing their mission?
 
MaGZ said:
But why did the plane suddenly crash into the field? What kept the hijackers from completing their mission?
Click to expand...

Petrified, scared but extremely brave passengers did all they could. Unlike yourself.

The hyjackers part completed their mission. A mission is broken down. It has a beginning, middle and an end. It requires immediate actions on certain events. Not all missions go as planned. They killed all onboard and grabbed the attention they wanted. They failed about 10% of this mission but still achieved the goal to kill. Apologise for them all you want.
 
McHrozni said:
The passengers of that same flight.

Didn't you know?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
 
femr2 said:
The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere...

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.
Click to expand...

So what part of the 9/11 Commission Report should show documentation of this engine section?

femr2, have you tried contacting anyone from that area of PA? Specifically, fire, rescue, or law enforcement?
 
MaGZ said:
The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever said the passengers brought down the plane.
 
gumboot said:
*Sigh*

That's not what I said. A 900lb part of one of the engines - in this case a fan section - was recovered from a catchment basin (at the centre of which is a small body of water - a pond) about 300yds SE of the impact site. This isn't something Conspiracy Theorists made up. It was reported in numerous media outlets and confirmed by Jeff Reinbold of the National Park Service - the man responsible for the Flight 93 Memorial.

What conspiracy theorists did was

A) Accept the erroneous media reports that it was an entire engine, without noticing the small discrepancy that a Pratt and Whitney PW2043 engine weighs over 3 tonne, thus making it clear the recovered object was not an entire engine but more like 10% of one.

B) Conclude that the engine was recovered from Indian Lake because reports stated that debris was recovered from the lake and a superfluous scan of Google Earth might not identify the smaller ponds located substantially closer to the crash site.
Click to expand...


Well that makes a hell of alot of sense!
 
MaGZ said:
The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
Click to expand...
The passengers attacked the terrorists, the chicken terrorists only knew how to crash planes and cut throats; kind of like neoNAZIs short on skills and short on brains. The terrorists failed when their game was known, they failed! 75 percent is not close to 100; too bad neoNAZIs can't do math, like the rest of 911 truth who spew lies and idiot ideas which you love. Do you have any usable knowledge on 911 besides idiotic delusions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom