The Little Engine That Couldn't

Alt video links: LiveVideo, YouTube (trailer)



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.


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."

(Flight 93 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines.)

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.

And who was it that reportedly hauled this engine out of the woods?

You guessed it!

Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.

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!

Four Flight 93 victims identified
Saturday, September 22, 2001

"Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.

Yesterday, investigators drained a two-acre pond about 1,000 feet from the crater where the jetliner slammed into the ground, just another step in hunting airliner parts, personal belongings and remains, Miller said." - post-gazette.com

But let's skip all the major inconsistencies of where this engine was found and assume a piece of it was found in the pond.

The pond is about 300 yards south of the crater.

Remember that Flight 93 was said to have crashed at 580mph into the ground at a 40deg angle.

There appears to be markings in the crater of where the two engines from Flight 93 supposedly hit.

(I guess.)

Remember that the ground was said to be "soft & loose" and that's why, they say, most of the plane was able to burrow deep underground.

So if Flight 93 hit this "soft" ground at nearly 600mph and at a 40deg angle then why did one of its massive engines that weighs almost 10,000 lbs burrow underground and the other one just bounced off?

Also, do any of these “engine marks” in the ground even look like marks made from 10,000-pound engines plowing nearly 600mph into the ground at a 40deg angle?

But if these marks were caused by Flight 93’s engines plowing into the ground, how did one not only manage to escape, but tumble so far from the crash?

But let's just assume for a second that its engine (or massive fan) did bounce off the ground after impact.

Could it have tumbled 300 yards after crashing?

Officials say so and I would actually agree.

However, what I am wondering is, whether it was an entire engine, or one of its massive fans, how in the world did it manage to tumble into the pond with this 70ft wall of trees in the way?

But if some part of an engine was found in the pond, who's to say it wasn't just planted there?

Isn't it just a little too coincidental that of all the places a piece of a plane's hot engine would be found is in the cold water of a pond?

So if the perps planted a heavy engine part in the pond, how did they get it there without being noticed?

Now that you're probably curious as to what was actually found in the pond (or woods for that matter) we can probably identify what this mystery part was by the photos taken of it at the scene:

Did you see it?


That's because officials never took any, or at least never released any.

Hmm, kinda weird they never showed us any photos of this large piece from Flight 93 that was reportedly recovered from the pond, or found in the woods.

(or was it found in the bushes???)

So what about the engine seen being excavated from the crater in that photo that wasn't released until 4 1/2 years after 9/11?

Is it from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engine, the kind Flight 93 had?

Kinda hard to tell since it's so smashed up.

But let's assume it is for the sake of argument.

The obvious first question about this engine is why is it only a few feet under the surface when officials said the black boxes were recovered 15ft & 25ft underground?

Also, doesn't this engine look kind of old and rusted?

Right about now it should start becoming obvious that this is a planted engine scrap.

But planted how and when?

There was a person living in a cottage right around the corner and there is a scrap yard right up the street in plain view.

How were the perps able to plant such an engine scrap without being noticed?

Seems unlikely that they dug up the field and planted it before the "crash".

So realistically, the perps would have to have planted it sometime afterwards.

But how could they have done that with so many responders stationed at the scene?

Well, it helps when the piece of debris you are planting fits neatly in the equipment you are "excavating" it with!

They just used one of their excavators at the scene and simply lowered it down for a nice little photo-op.

Didn't you notice the engine scrap was small enough to fit in the backhoe bucket?

And that no dirt is caked on it after supposedly burrowing down "soft soil" at nearly 600mph?!

And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.

And if it can’t get more obvious the perps threw little pieces of shiny aluminum in the crater to try to make their staged photo-op look more real.

When will they learn that United Airlines planes are not silver, but dark blue and grey?

But you can’t blame them for trying.

I mean, what are you supposed to do when you have to excavate a hole with no plane in it?

(See also: The planted engines at Shanksville)


spooked said...

Awesome! 2 thumbs up!!!

stuarthwyman said...

Hi friends,
i write from Italy, "http://bugietotali.blogspot.com/"
Well i meet a client of mine from New Yoork He tell me that after the collapse of the tower some human corps was found in the Hudson River.
So, i tell this in some site in Italy and somebody tell me is a kake news.
I try to ask to the Ny client if he has some font but He doesn't wont do nothing....
I ask you: if you has some news about corps in the Hudson Rivers and tell me
By Stuarthwyman

skeptosis said...

KT that was excellent. i'm going to link my UA93 model in Second Life to this page, keep up the good work..

DecideMyFate said...

this is great. kudos to you my friend.

PursuitofTruth said...

Good work,I still find it difficult to believe people doubt that this was 100% staged.There is so much photographic evidence of genuine plane crashes, this is not even close no matter how you spin it...keep up the fight for the truth

facebookprogrammer said...

One thing everyone is forgetting is that the wing-scarred crater where the 'plane' slammed into....ALREADY EXISTED prior to 9/11. Look for the video on Youtube that shows Google Earth 1994 images of the site and the wing scars are already there :)

smartguy17 said...

Really? 10 years later and you still want to throw out conspiracy theories? Maybe some stories differ, but in the end people lost their lives on this flight. You should respect them and stop trying to play this off as some hoax, which it isn't. Nobody needs to prove anything to you. Just ask the families of those lost. I bet they would say that it was a big hoax and that their loved ones were never killed. Oh wait no they wouldn't.