Moderated Shanksville PA, jet engine or Plymouth wheel-covers?

[jammonius]

Ahmadinejad is the perfect ally of 911 truth, he denies the Holocaust and you deny a jet engine is a jet engine by saying wheel-cover for a Plymouth. Perfect, you and the president of Iran making up lies.

Well, beachnut, if that is your opening salvo, is there a particular way you want to proceed or not?

Shown above are what are listed as Plymouth wheel covers. Shown below is the iconic photo of what is said to be the crash site at Shanksville PA and what you say is a jet engine and what I say is, first of all, a hydraulic excavator as the most visible and only truly identifiable thing in the foreground of the picture. As to the hydraulic excavator, no true statement can be said, even, about the size of it based on not knowing the telephoto and other relevant information about the photograph.

I understand you claim the thing next to the excavator is a jet engine.

What you could do, but haven't is post up a photo of the completely excavated piece of junk (for that it is the only valid way it can be described in the photo) to show that it might be something else.

As it sits and based on what can be reasonably seen and not assumed, the best guess as to what that is, in my view, is a wheel cover.

Do you concede there is no positive identification of the piece of junk as a jet engine and that you are basing your claim on what you believe and not on what you can independently prove?

Are you willing to acknowledge that much beachnut, or is that simply not a place where you are willing to go?

Let me ask you, do you think you are above being asked to source your claim that the piece of junk is a jet engine?

Is doing so one of those "how dare you" type claims in your view?

I think this relates to this thread because a few have wondered out loud what Ahmadinejad could point to for purposes of substantiating his doubts about the accuracy of the official storyline of 9/11. I would certainly say that weak and unsubstantiated photographs would be one way to establish doubt of the official storyline of 9/11.

Once again, it is helpful here to have at least a tiny bit of recognition that people who live elsewhere might demand a higher standard of proof than what is acceptable to Americans. I am here reaching out to you, beachnut, by saying I clearly understand you think the photo shown of the excavator and the piece of junk is a part of a jet engine. I get that. However, you have elsewhere disclosed that you are an American as you have flown around in F-4s and such like.

But, as this is a thread about Ahmadinejad who is decidedly not an American, do you at least acknowledge that people like that might look at what you claim is a photo of a jet engine and say you are delusional because you want to believe the official storyline?

beachnut, have you any capacity at all for recognizing the effect upon you of your own set of biases; or, does bias only apply to other people?

 

[beachnut]

Don't worry, one day with some knowlege you too can identify jet engines. Until then be happe you have your delusions made up by morons in 911 truth. One day you will learn to think for yourself too, if you try.

 

[twinstead]

beachnut, have you any capacity at all for recognizing the effect upon you of your own set of biases; or, does bias only apply to other people?

That's an odd question coming from someone who has a trunk full of biases himself, jammonius.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, beachnut, if that is your opening salvo, is there a particular way you want to proceed or not? bunch of bull **** snipped?

Jammonius, actually that is a TRIAL exhibit that was introduced into EVIDENCE in a TRIAL.

You might wish to save your borderline unreadable post, and instead focus on just how that Exhibit was introduced into evidence.

I know how it was, and based on that, I know that your post is ridiculously foolish.

 

[Carll68]

Be sure to ignore all the evidence kid.....you already think engines are wheel covers...

 

[kookbreaker]

Those are some thick hubcaps!

 

[Alt+F4]

Once again, it is helpful here to have at least a tiny bit of recognition that people who live elsewhere might demand a higher standard of proof than what is acceptable to Americans.

And less than .0005% of humans on planet earth have come out in support of any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

 

[fallout]

And less than .0005% of humans on planet earth have come out in support of any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Nice, I was looking for that data, do you have the sources pls?

 

[Alt+F4]

Nice, I was looking for that data, do you have the sources pls?

Me.

Actually I over estimated. Maybe 3,400 hundred people on earth have spoken out in their belief of a 9/11 conspiracy? With a world population of 6.8 billion that would make the percentage .00005%

 

[beachnut]

Nice, I was looking for that data, do you have the sources pls?

So far you and bill. now divide 3 or 4 billion into 2, and you have the a ratio for your support in delusion. Did you forget to bring evidence jet engines on 911 were really Plymouth wheel-covers? lol

you can't do math?
you can't figure out how many support your failed ideas on 911?
you can't find your evidence to save your failed conclusions?

 

[George 152]

Shown above are what are listed as Plymouth wheel covers. Shown below is the iconic photo of what is said to be the crash site at Shanksville PA and what you say is a jet engine and what I say is, first of all, a hydraulic excavator as the most visible and only truly identifiable thing in the foreground of the picture. As to the hydraulic excavator, no true statement can be said, even, about the size of it based on not knowing the telephoto and other relevant information about the photograph.

Okay. The digger bucket is a standard size.
You can look them up on the Net and find out what their dimensions are.
Then measure the bucket against the impeller/compressor.
You will then move the goalposts because even you will realise that the hubcaps are to small to be connected.

 

[rwguinn]

<Snip>

But, as this is a thread about Ahmadinejad who is decidedly not an American, do you at least acknowledge that people like that might look at what you claim is a photo of a jet engine and say you are delusional because you want to believe the official storyline?

beachnut, have you any capacity at all for recognizing the effect upon you of your own set of biases; or, does bias only apply to other people?

not too awfully long ago, those same people believed that the Earth was flat, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
They also, since they couldn't understand it, believed that the the sun ate its own children (the stars) every morning, disappeared into a long tunnel at night, and otherwise made **** up about stuff they couldn't/wouldn't understand.
So where are you?

 

[TJM]

I understand you claim the thing next to the excavator is a jet engine.

For the last time, nobody is claiming that is a jet engine. It is PART of a turbofan engine, probably the low or high compressor assembly.

Educate yourself:



Nobody is claiming something that large (a fully assembled engine) is what's is next to the backhoe. It doesn't do your argument any good by trying to play ridiculous word games. We're aware it's all you have but please, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why somebody like you would claim that's a Plymouth hubcap. After all, Plymouth did produce the Duster.

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius, actually that is a TRIAL exhibit that was introduced into EVIDENCE in a TRIAL.

You might wish to save your borderline unreadable post, and instead focus on just how that Exhibit was introduced into evidence.

I know how it was, and based on that, I know that your post is ridiculously foolish.

16 +

You say it was introduced as evidence and you know how was done. That is nice, but I notice you made no such showing in your post. Can you please say or show how you substantiate that claim. All I have been able to find is what I posted; namely that it was listed in the second of a two part listing of prosecution trial exhibits, plus an order authorizing "bulk admission of exhibits" as shown below. That is not the same as being introduced into evidence for the proposition that the photo is that of a jet engine.

This is not to say no evidence was introduced at the Moussaoui penalty phase trial. Some was. However, even there, the most often mentioned item of evidence coming from Flight 93 that was mentioned as actually bening formally introduced is the alleged transcipt from the alleged cockpit.

That was read into evidence, but the problem was, the actual evidence contradicted what was previously said to have been found in it, which can hardly be said to be a ringing endorsement of what we think we know about 9/11. In fact the actual transcript contradicted one of the iconic beliefs about 9/11. Thus, all that does is confirm, once again, that actual evidence often differs from what people assume.

Consider this:

"The reading of the United Airlines Flight 93 voice recorder transcript during the ... trial of Zacarias Moussaoui confirms what has already been stated in the findings of the 9/11 Commission — there is nothing to show any passenger ever got into cockpit or fought the terrorists before the plane crashed at 10:03 a.m. EST.

The transcript does not record anyone saying, "Let's roll" as stated in previous media reports, but has one person saying "roll it." The phrase "Let's roll" has become a popular catchphrase, said to be stated by Todd Beamer, in reference to the attempt of passengers of Flight 93 to stop the hijackers. President Bush used the phrase in his 2002 State of the Union Address."

This is why evidence does matter.

Moreover, the Moussaoui trial actually only pertained to his penalty, as he pleaded guilty. And, as to that penalty, the trial itself was halted because of improper conduct by government lawyers.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031300506.html

As to exhibits, the only thing I can find is an order not objecting to them being shown to the jury, in bulk, but that includes no discussion of them and no expansion on what little the exhibits actually say. I have seen the following order:

That doesn't serve to add to the only statement I've seen about the excavator piece of junk photo that says:

"Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

And, as to that statement, that was not even a part of the evidence, I don't think; and, even if it is, it makes no claim that what is seen is a jet engine.

I'm very sorry this offends posters who, I know, want to assume the photo is a jet engine and a part of a Boeing 757 and a part of United Flight 93 and who do not like anyone questioning the fact that there's no proof of that, other than what posters here want to believe.

Your beliefs are not proof. Your beliefs are your beliefs. It is too bad you accept so many assumptions about 9/11 without adequate proof.


If it was introduced as evidence, can you kindly say what was it introduced as purporting to showf? I have shown several times that it was not described as being a photo of a jet engine.

Finally, I'm not sure how much more time we have to spend on this. Let me ask a question. Would people here prefer not have to show that the photo was described as being a part of a jet engine? Do people here absolutely want it to be assumed the photo is that of a jet engine and that it is just not reight for anybody to say it has not ever been said to be a jet engine anywhere that anyone has yet posted up?

What do you folks want in re the requirement of proof? Ignore it because they agree with agglerithm that ignorance is bliss?

 

[beachnut]

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144...

... I understand you claim the thing next to the excavator is a jet engine.

Not a claim, it is a fact. You can't identify correctly a plymouth wheel cover. Failure to identify your own illusion properly, you think a jet engine is a wheel cover. How much does your wheel-cover weigh? Why do we need a big shovel to lift a wheel-cover and dig it up? lol, you are joking you can't be this far out.

... What you could do, but haven't is post up a photo of the completely excavated piece of junk (for that it is the only valid way it can be described in the photo) to show that it might be something else.

Sorry, I know at first sight the part is from a trubine engine. It is so easy to see as jet engine it is common knowlege to me an hundreds of trained aircraft accident investigators. The bad news for me and hundreds of trained investigators on this topic; my grandson is five years old and he can identify the part as a jet engine. Bad news? Yes, we don't need training to identify jet engines, it is too easy.

... As it sits and based on what can be reasonably seen and not assumed, the best guess as to what that is, in my view, is a wheel cover.

A five year old can figure out it is a jet engine. You really want to admit and support your wheel-cover delusion?

... Do you concede there is no positive identification of the piece of junk as a jet engine and that you are basing your claim on what you believe and not on what you can independently prove?

I can prove the part is a jet engine on sight. You can't prove it is wheel-cover, but you persist at calling it a wheel-cover this is cool if you wish to spew lies and apologize for terrorists. What else can you do but lie and fail to gain the knowledge and logic skills required to join the real world.

... Let me ask you, do you think you are above being asked to source your claim that the piece of junk is a jet engine?

? It is a jet engine, no source is required, I can tell by sight; I was trained, I have used jet engines since 1975. It is a jet engine.
I was trained since the 50s to identify wheel-covers, it is not a wheel-cover, I have used wheel-covers as toys since 1954. Take your wheel-covers and start a thread for UFOs at some delusion lovers forum.

... beachnut, have you any capacity at all for recognizing the effect upon you of your own set of biases; or, does bias only apply to other people?

You have the bias against learning. Why do you wish to propagate lies and delusions for 911 truth?

 

[BigAl]

Well, beachnut, if that is your opening salvo, is there a particular way you want to proceed or not?

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/5c4b_1.jpg?t=1267984732[/qimg]

Shown above are what are listed as Plymouth wheel covers. Shown below is the iconic photo of what is said to be the crash site at Shanksville PA and

Given that I know what parts of jet engines look like when the plane hits the ground at 600MPH and that we have all the evidence listed below for the Shanksville crash of Flight 93, it's a jet turbine disk. The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11 might be a clue.

You seem to be avoiding the Flight 93 thread. You seem to be dodging the post that supports the fact that DNA for all passengers and crew of Flight 93 were identified from the body parts found in that hole in Shanksville. Here's the link for your convenience.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5690114#post5690114

We have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, Phone company data identifying the location where the calls were made from, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by some of these people.

The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/16/september11.usa2

And

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=1619489

 

[jammonius]

For the last time, nobody is claiming that is a jet engine. It is PART of a turbofan engine, probably the low or high compressor assembly.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2636[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2627[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2629[/qimg]​

Educate yourself:



Nobody is claiming something that large (a fully assembled engine) is what's is next to the backhoe. It doesn't do your argument any good by trying to play ridiculous word games. We're aware it's all you have but please, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why somebody like you would claim that's a Plymouth hubcap. After all, Plymouth did produce the Duster.

ajm

Thank you for your post. But, posters here make the claim it is a jet engine interchangably with the claim it is a part of a jet engine. Here for example is a portion of beachnut's most recent contribution:

It is a jet engine, no source is required,... [beachnut]

The claim that what is seen is merely a part of a jet engine cuts both ways, ajm. All I think you've done here is show us a part of a jet engine that does look remarkably similar to a wheel cover, which has the effect of muddying rather clarifying your claim, I would say.

I know this may offend posters, but good grief, ajm, how on earth can you positively distinguish the photo of the wheel covers I showed from the video clip that you displayed, especially since your video clip is out of focus?

And, in any event, we're now close to home on this. beachnut has said he doesn't need a source. You, ajm, haven't provided any. so, it is clear this is a situation where one poster says it's a wheel cover and also says, there is no claim the photograph is a part of a jet engine. Other posters say sourcing doesn't matter and that it's definitely a part of jet engine, while posting up a part of a jet engine that looks like a wheel cover.

I'm getting to the point where I'm about ready to say "ok, let's agree to disagree." I think we can do this honorably for, indeed, your photo of a jet engine part does look like a wheel cover.

What do you claim are the features of the one that are clearly differentiated from the other, given the degraded state of that which is seen next to the excavtor in the photo you've now tampered with?

I mean no disrespect to posters who believe what is seen in the photo you've tampered with is a photo of a part of a jet engine. But, posters, at some point you might want to consider that you are going in the wrong direction if what you thought you were doing was making it clearer that what is seen is a part of jet engine, based on posting a part that is all but indistinguishable, in relative size and shape, from a wheel cover. Note, the degraded photograph is not adequate to make claims about diameter.

So, look again:

 

[beachnut]

911 truth, lies, they say jet engine parts are wheel-covers. One of the dumbest claims on 911 yet, ranks with beam weapon insanity, and thermite.

How many 911 truth cult members agree jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel-covers?

1? 2?

 

[BigAl]

ajm

Thank you for your post. All I think you've done here is show up a part of a jet engine that does look remarkably similar to a wheel cover. I know this may offend posters, but good grief, ajm, how on earth can you distinguish the photo of the wheel covers I showed from the video clip that you displayed, especially since your video clip is out of focus?

Dude, it was found with 100 tons of 757 parts, and we have mountains of evidence that shows that the 757 was Flight 93, what else would it be?

The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it
carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11
might be a clue.

We have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental
records (if necessary) , black box data, cockpit speech via the flight
voice recorder, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger Airphone
calls, passenger cell phone calls, phone company data identifying the
location where the plane was when the calls were made, radar track
data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests,
multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim
A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that
planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and
did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by
some of these people.

 

[jammonius]

911 truth, lies, they say jet engine parts are wheel-covers. One of the dumbest claims on 911 yet, ranks with beam weapon insanity, and thermite.

How many 911 truth cult members agree jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel-covers?

1? 2?

beachnut,

Having already said you don't require a source that what is seen is a part of a jet engine, what further interest are you seeking to advance. You do not need proof. Your mind is made up.

You said and I now re-quote:

It is a jet engine, no source is required...

Although the following photo was tampered with, and thus made useless as evidence, it is still representative of what serves as the basis for your claim it is a part of a jet engine that requires, as you say "no source":

OK, lets' try one last thing, beachnut.

Separate and apart from your claim "no source" is required, would you agree with me that a source would strengthen the claim it is a part of a jet engine?

And, would you agree with me that overt destruction of the ability to provide a source of confirmation can be seen as and reasonably defined as an intentional cover up and destruction of evidence?

Is it your understanding that a side in a legal claim that destroys evidence usually loses the ability to offer proof as to any claim that might involve the destroyed evidence?

Is any of this a fair inquiry for you, beachnut, or does this also give offense to you?