Debunking of 911

[blackberry]

There was a thread a couple of days back about a video done by these guys I thibk. Heres a web page I found about them.

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11........


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

[killtown]

Roving Engine
Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
First about the revolving reports about an engine found outside the crater:

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.

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

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."

One report said this massive engine was found 600 yards from the crater.

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.

They reportedly had to haul this engine out of the woods with a bulldozer.

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!

http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/09/little-engine-that-couldnt.html


Now about the alleged engine fan found in the pond:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9082/ua93enginefanponduq1.gif

[axel]

I think what they are trying to say is that it also bounced upwards as well as forward, so that it bounced over that wall of trees and then into the pond.

Not saying I believe it, but I think that's what they're trying to explain.

[stannrodd]

So a three tonne engine bounces while an aluminium aircraft shell makes a crater !! Ferk Me !!

I threw away Pop Mechanics .. when they did an underground tunnel for the Panama Canal !!

That was in the 50's I think

Stann

[breezinreezin]

There was a thread a couple of days back about a video done by these guys I thibk. Heres a web page I found about them.

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11........


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Welcome to the forum. If you acquaint yourself with the search feature, you'll probably find that Popular Mechanics have been discussed many times here already. Their impartiality is extemely suspect and their science not much better. They've debunked nothing. This is getting like Groundhog Day.

[cafetimes1991]

There was a thread a couple of days back about a video done by these guys I thibk. Heres a web page I found about them.

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11........


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

I'm going to watch Loose Change with the 'debunking' viewers guide.

[noewhan]

I could see how the 'bouncing engine' theory would work... But what are the odds?

"When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9082/ua93enginefanponduq1.gif

Popular mechanics would say it bounced over the trees, but yeah that is strange.

[axel]

Yeah, exactly. That's what I mean -- I don't believe it at all, but I was just trying to clarify what the fella was trying to say about "bouncing".

[helloperator]

At least we can all agree on robot birds

[ronisron]

Bouncing engine? Pancake theory? Boogeyman in a cave? Hijacking with boxcutters? Plane hit Pentagon?

Lets start at Square 1.0.... Popular Mechanics has debunked the theory of an inside job....