http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6989270943228558703

Killtown quotes numerous sources and claims that it is suspicious that they do not all agree. He claims that responders at the crater where the engine was recovered only had a view of the backside of the backhoe bucket that was allegedly used to plant evidence. This is a very stupid thing to say since the backhoe operator (a responder) had a good view of the cater and equipment he was operating. Killtown is also too stupid to know that aluminum is a grayish silver color, or maybe he is just lying again. Do not be hoodwinked by this piece of fluff video.

Ranb

All of the sources clearly contradict each other. How can one source indicate that the engine was found far from the crater in the woods and had to be towed out by a winch, yet another source state that a small piece was found in the pond? It isn't as if they first indicated that the entire engine was located at one spot, then later corrected themselves and said a section of the engine was found in that same spot, rather than a location geographically polar to the first.

And by the way, if you had payed attention to the video you would have noticed that it said they had found the engine in the woods before they had even searched the pond. The point is to illustrate the contradictions of the different news sources.

Obviously some of the people who were there were in on it. What I got out of it is that all of the people there were not necessarily in on it, instead in all likelihood only those closest to the crater. All those responders on the road would have had no clue they were planting that engine because they couldn't see it, thereby keeping the amount of people in on it very low.

"Too stupid." It appears to me as if you never learned to treat others with respect. How old are you exactly? By your immature insults it would appear that you have yet to enter into puberty and haven't figured out an adult way to speak with others.

Or "just lying again." What do you mean lying again? What has he lied about before? And if the shiny piece is not aluminum what is it? Where did it come from?

Witty. It seems that videos that are good result in attacks from skeptics like you.

Keep it civil please.

And bonjour, Jennifer. Talked to you before thru MySpace. Enjoy the forums.

Errors in reporting does not a conspiracy make. Killtown generates a fantasy out trivial errors like these. These errors are trivial because they are made by non-experts and usually corrected later.

Maybe you noticed that Killtown did not choose any sources that agreed.

It is not obvious that some of the responders were in on it since Killtown has not presented any evidence that any of them were in on it. Guessing and questions are not evidence.

When Killtown says something stupid in an attempt to support a theory, then he/she is not worthy of respect from anyone except a LC supporter. :)

I did not say it wasn't aluminum. I am saying it can be an aluminum part of the plane even though it does not appear to be the color he wants it to be.

Check out the LC or JREF forums for titles about Mcclathey for some Killtown lies, they are numerous.

The video is a piece of crap. It is easy to dismiss and attack.

Ranb

Thanks Ethan...

This guy is a troll though.

Show me one of his lies.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

How much time have you got?

"Faces in the clouds", maybe? Check it out.

Killtown may well be in need of psychiatric help.

Plenty.

What is that about and what is the lie?

You may well be in the need of some manners.

First Post here and I'm not here to get in the middle of an arguement but I guess in a way, I wouldn't be posting if I didn't.

I just visited the make shift memorial on Sunday and I have to say that it is a bit ominous to just visit there. Regardless if you believe that Flight 93 happened exactly by the book or not, just the idea that something tragic happened there makes it a very unique place to visit.

I'm not sure what the official conspiracy is behind Flight 93 but I figure that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So I'm asking you conspiracy buffs - what IS the true story? Fake Plane? Plane shot down? No, I'm not a troll, I'm really trying to figure out what the official conspiracy is.

I referred to one of his lies in my first reply. He lied when he said that the responders were only able to see the back of the backhoe bucket as it "planted evidence".

Ranb

Lying... ha!!! Why don't you just call him a Nazi as well to try and further smear him?

I cannot speak for KT, however I believe his point is that all the responders were not in on it. Those who were parked on that service road were shielded from seeing whatever it was that occurred at the crater if and when they were planting the engine. Do you get the point???? The few people at the crater would have known precisely what was happening, yet those parked on the street did not necessarily have to know.

Think for yourself RETARD, think of the possibilities of what really may have occurred on that day and stop limiting yourself to the James Randi canned answer...

So tell me, where do you think that engine in the crater came from... the one that looks old, rusted, with no dirt embedded in it, that was found only a few feet underground while the black boxes that were located further back in the plane were found much, much deeper in the ground than that piece of engine? THE PLANE THAT CRASHED THERE?

Clearly this is the Little Engine that Woods. The engine skipped logically through the forest only to land in ponder over yonder swearing "I think I can... if you think I can!" Perhaps this was its first Brush with Trees and Hedged against itself Leafing it up to us to foil this conspiracy obscured by the Foliage. And the perpetraitors will say the engine is the only thing with a Loco-Motive!

The engine was closer to the surface because they must have thought people wouldn't dig that deep to find out what they covered up! :D

I am not calling him a Nazi simply because I have no reason to believe he is one. You have any reason to think he is a Nazi?

KT did not say "some responders", he said "the responders". This is an attempt to smear anyone who happens to be a responder at the Skanksville crash site.

I have no idea what the James Randi answer is for anything. Why would you think I am influenced by JREF anyway? Got evidence to back up this claim? I do not think so. You may have noticed that I do not include many links in my posts on this forum. This is because I come up with my own ideas and critique the ideas of others.

I have no reason to believe that the engine in the crater came from anywhere else but flight 93. Do you understand that projectile penetration is dependant upon velocity, angle of attack, cross sectional density and mass? I do. Education is a wonderful thing, try it sometime.

You seem to base what evidence/witnesses to believe based on the conclusions you want to reach. I base my conclusions on the available evidence.

Ranb

Edited for grammer.

All your little friends at the Randi club seem to think he is. I was just surprised you haven't started calling him one too.

Again, I cannot speak for KT, however I did watch the video. Did you? I believe he differentiated between those he believed planted the engine ("the perps") and the responders parked on the street who were not in on it. Why don't you actually watch the video and then come back and further "critique the ideas of others."

Yes, I do understand... what's your point? And since you are a wise one and I'm just a commoner, can you explain to me how the black box's located further back in the plane managed to penetrate deeper than the engines? Also, while we're at it, maybe you can explain how neither the engines or the black boxes are covered in dirt when they were allegedly being recovered?

Me? Thanks for the tip...

This is the funniest part of your post... perhaps you should take your own advise.

Do I need to answer this question?

I do not have any friends at the “Randi club” as you call it. If you would read some of my posts on JREF and see how people respond to some of them then you would know that I am not very popular at the JREF forum. I really have no idea why you would think otherwise, except that you seem to be prejudiced against those who do not agree with you.

I have watched the video twice, a waste of about 25 minutes of my life. From the video, “And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater…..would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.” Killtown does not differentiate between where and who the perps and responders are. From what he says, some of them are guilty just because they were there at the crater.

I think that you and Killtown fail to understand that airliner crashes are not neat little affairs. Pieces can scatter and spread around a lot. While the ground was described as soft, this is not really enough information to come to a conclusion. Unless the ground was described as homogenous, one should not be expecting an even distribution of parts in the ground.

I am not wise, but I am a commoner. Since the FDR is located near the rear of the plane it can follow the fuselage into the ground.

I am quite certain that as some of the parts were uncovered, they had the dirt brushed off for photos prior to being carried away. There is nothing suspicious about this.

I edited my post after the initial posting. When this is done, it is only polite to say so just in case someone quoted my post. I do not want to mislead anyone here or on any forum.

You do not need to answer any questions, but it is polite to do so if you expect answers to your own.

Ranb

The tail crater is just an optical illusion then? How is the tail gash made and still allow the FDR to penetrate further if the tail section had made that gash? No visible debris from the tail section that made the gash either. And yeah we all know how messy and unpredictable debris can be in a high speed airplane impact, pardon me if I bUrrow your logic for that instance.

No part of the crater is an optical illusion far as I can tell

Any aircraft part made of metal is going to leave some kind of a mark when it hits the ground that fast. Hard dense parts will tend to penetrate deeper into a target.

Just because there is no visible debris doesn't mean it isn't there. Debris could be under the surface of the earth, or scattered out of the impact zone, or just not showing up in some of the photos. It is like when I shoot a subsonic cast lead bullet at a mild steel target. The bullet can leave a crater, but it fragments from the impact and leaves a bit of lead lining the impact area. This is not a great analogy, but it might help picture things.

No need to ask for my pardon. You find anything wrong with my logic? Thanks.

Ranb

No, quite the contrary, comments like that make me think you are a part of the Randi club. Perhaps you could use a little education yourself.

I am still not sure that you watched the video, certainly not without your JREF bias. I understood it as the people parked down on the street would not need to be in on it and that the few at the crater (i.e. the "perps") were the only ones who would have to be part of the conspiracy.

That's become apparent.

:blink:

So how did the fuselage manage to burrow so much further then the engine?

Brushed off? :blink:

Have you ever seen in another plane accident recovery where they would recover part of the plane, brush it off at the scene, and take a picture of it before they finished recovering it out of the ground? I sure haven't. This would be a first to my knowledge. However, apparently I need to a little more education, right "Ranb?"

Yeah, I got that.

I can understand the bullet and it's traces but that is actually something honed with mass made to penetrate where a plane is made as principles of Drag Thrust and Lift within a hollow frame made of thin aluminum and alloys. To say that leaving no debris is logical, yet then say debris acts unpredictable in the same sentance is what I find amusing. Embedding harder parts further would also mean that the engines are very much harder with larger mass than black boxes wouldn't it? Or perhaps it is due to larger black masses outside the box thinking.

The optical illusion happens to fit within the actual outline of how the plane supposedly hit. So how does it hit above the crater and debris follow into the crater?

The heat from the plane and parts entering the ground should have caked the dirt even harder with compression and baked it like clay.

First time I ever looked at this so I could be completely wrong as I have not invested any time other than the few minutes to watch the engine that couldn't, and also enough time to write funny stuff concerning it.

SincEngineeringly,
T3QuillAMocKINGbird

I am in my 40's and have been around a bit in this world, but I am always ready to learn more. The more I know, the more I know I don't know. It is always a pleasure to learn new things. One of the things I learned by watching this video is that KT will accuse anyone of just about anything to further his/her agenda that 19 hi-jackers did not control the four aircraft that caused so much damage on 9/11.

Trust me, I watched that video twice. My quote is directly from the video.

I do not know why the FDR was found deeper than the engine. But until I see evidence why it shouldn't have, it is not strange that it did.

I have never witnessed any plane accident recovery. But it makes sense that parts are photographed in place during and after uncovering the pieces. That an aircraft part was photographed without dirt on it does not mean it never had dirt on it. There may even be photos out that that show it partially buried, I do not know. Do you have other resources to show? What evidence do you have that proves the engine was not photographed while it was being dug out of the ground?

Ranb

While most aircraft are not made to penetrate targets, they will penetrate to a degree just because they have mass and kinetic energy. I am thinking it is possible that the fuselage parted the earth a bit and made it possible for parts in the rear portion of the plane to get deeper in the ground. I am not sure if this makes sense but it is all I got for now.

I said that debris may not be visible, in other words, out of view of the some of the few photos that are posted here.

I would have expected that the engines would have been deeper than the FDR. But crash site conditions are hard to predict; for me anyway.

I'm not sure what you are getting at by "optical illusion".

I'm sure heat was generated as part of the impact. But since the heat is generated as the parts are moving through the ground, this does not mean any such baking as you call it would resist penetration into the ground. Was any baked clay noted at the crash site?

Ranb

A debunker would have to call the tail gouge an optical illusion as if the tail hit to create it there would have to be more localized debris by it. Or did it fly into the forest along with any other debris that acted erratic but launched away from the site and out of sight?

I was getting at how clean the engine was compared to the pressure that would cake dirt or heat that would change the dirts composition to how clay hardens. IMO dirt would stick to the pieces more than what we are shown or explained by cleaning a piece off. Unless they had high pressure hoses to wash the part off.

As I have never been at the crash site of an airliner soon after the incident, I have no real experience to draw from. About the only thing I can compare it to are subsonic cast bullets shot into a dirt berm. If the bullet encounters just sand and gravel much smaller than the bullet, then it tends to penetrate about 6-12 inches. If it hits a rock much larger than itself, the bullet tends to fragment into many pieces and are not to be found anywhere close to the impact point unless they travel into the dirt instead of the air.

I have recovered spent bullets in the berm with a coating of dirt on them. Others looked clean, just bent out of shape with rifling and impact marks on them.

While some small pieces of the tail may found in the impact zone, I imagine that some of it would be dispersed into the air and settle farther from the crash site. Does anyone know if other photos were taken of the engine as it was uncovered?

Ranb

I understand ballistics too, but when a plane hits, the sides will more readily give way and explode out differently than a solid bullet. Where the same principles apply to the force the differences are exerted from their compositions and structural weaknesses that would not sustain the impact to exert as a complete force as they break apart. You get what I am getting at? Where the tragectory of a bullet will give force to the tip the plane will absorb force on the tip and redistribute it instantly to the rest of the plane causing more torsion than force as its not molecularly combined but a structure.

Really? Well I'm anxiously awaiting your evidence of this.

His. Why do you despise KT so much? Why are you here? What is YOUR agenda?

And you keep taking what he says and twisting into what you want to think he is saying.

"Not strange," spoken like a true skeptic. The engines are, from what I know, the strongest and most dense of an airplane. If the fuselage, which is less dense and larger mass, was able to penetrate so far down, the engines should, in all likelihood, penetrate further and certainly wouldn't have bounced off that spongy ground. It's obvious you think it is "not strange" because it is your agenda to support the official story no matter what.

That is so absurd to think they would uncover a piece of plane debris and like an archaeologist, scrape/brush off ALL the dirt and then set it back in to take a photo of it. However, I guess in the mind of a skeptic who's sole agenda is to support the official story, nothing is strange if it will support the official story.

Maybe you should watch the video a third time.

Once again, from the video “And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater…..would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.” KT has no evidence that anyone at the crash site was guilty of any conspiracy, but he is willing to implicate anyone who was at the crater when the engine part was uncovered. I do not have to twist anything; it is there in words in the video.

Unless you were there or actually have detailed information about the type of ground the aircraft crashed into, then you would not really be sure how far any of the individual components would penetrate.

What evidence do you have that anything was uncovered, removed, and then put back in place for a photo op?

Ranb

Yes I get it. My point was that the way a projectile reacts with it's target depends upon what the target is composed of.

If that engine piece was planted, you would agree that at least some of those people at the crater would be in on it, yes?

The news reports all say it was soft and spongy.

Are you saying that's what they did, or are you asking if that's what the film is suggesting happened?

If the engine was planted, I would not be surprised if some of the responders were in on it. However, letting innocent responders find any evidence that was planted would make it all seem more "real". After all they had a good idea were to look, there was a crater and a fire.

Are the reporters who say the ground was soft and spongy the same ones who reported that 19 terrorists are responsible for the attacks on the WTC? How do you decide who to believe? Maybe those reporters were just making general statements about the crash site?

I am saying the engine part was uncovered, then photographed. It would make sense to have numerous photos taken while digging up and uncovering the engine. How much they brushed off the engine before lifting it out I do not know.

Ranb

That's a very important point. The possilbe "innocent responders" collected debris throughout the forest and they didn't start recovery until the 13th, if I'm not mistaken. In that time debris could have easily been planted. I also remember in the video where KT indicated that they threw in small pieces of metal among the crater (that was absent of any other physical evidence) to "make it all seem more 'real'".

Maybe they were told that it was soft by the officials?

So what you are saying is they uncovered a big chunk of dirt and inside that was an engine. Before they took it out of the crater, they brushed it off to expose the engine and took photos of it still in the crater. Why? Why would they even bother to do that? Why was it so important to them to "prove" that they found the engine in the crater as opposed to removing the chunk of dirt out of the crater, then cleaning it up afterward and then photographing it?

KT makes claims with no evidence to support them. He did not personally witness anything at the crash site during cleanup and everyone else who was there cleaning up has not claimed that items were planted. He claims that the aluminum pieces are not the right color, but they appear to be aluminum color. Not all of the aircraft aluminum was painted in the airline‘s colors as he suggests the pieces should have been.

What makes certain reporters more believable than others? You must have reasons why you believe some of them but not others. If a reporter is repeating something that he or she was told by "the officials" then they are believable? So surely you believe reporters who report that 19 terrorists are responsible for crashing four airliners because they were told that by the officials?

The Shanksville crash site was a crime scene. Lots of photographs are required or expected to be taken. I would say the more photos taken the more believable this makes it. Was this the only photo taken of the engine while it was in contact with the ground? If it was, then I would say it is strange, I would be expecting more than one.

Ranb