uke2se wrote:Morien wrote:No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.
Evidence was provided in the link I gave you which you hand waved.
And reasons were provided for the 'hand wave'...None of which you have rebutted, I note...
uke2se wrote:Only lightweight material landed that far away. Provide evidence for it being any other way.
Again, you need to study the evdidence provided..in this case, a map was posted. Consult it.
uke2se wrote:Evidence we have provided have been disregarded by you. A plane crashing into the ground is going to do so fairly rapidly. If it was 500 mph, 900 mph or 300 mph doesn't really matter to this discussion.
Who is the royal 'we'?..And reasons were given
why this was rebutted. None of the evidence I have provided has been even read, it seems let alone rebutted adequately....
uke2se wrote:The only one claiming the wind blew the engine anywhere is you. The parts that were found far away was all lightweight material. The engine was found 300 yards from the crash site, which is not uncommon.
You have provided not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that it is not common, I note....
Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.
Debris fields from Flight 93 were scattered across eight miles.
An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion
http://tinyurl.com/mqqnbAgain, the parts found away from the crash site were
not lightwight material, as was shown in the evidence provided. Really, if you are not going to bother to adequately read and rebut the evidence provided, then don't bother.
Morien wrote:'Tiny' bits of debris...would that include the quarter tone engine, blown approximeately a quarter of a mile?
uke2se wrote:300 yards. Again, not unheard of in plane crashes.
Not unheard of, as stated by
you...without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up,
again as noted....My evidence suggests it was far more than the 300 yards you claim. This would have been easily noticed...if you had read it....
Morien wrote:Yes...you may continue to tangentially and disingenuously talk of 'small things', it has not gone unnoticed.
uke2se wrote:Because it's true.
So you say...My evidence insdicates that debris landed up to 8 miles away...I note
again you have done nothing to rebut this, save the usual hand wave.
Morien wrote:Not according to Don Rumsfeld, if you view the youtube evidence I provided.
uke2se wrote:Rumsfeld got it wrong? Shock horror! It's amusing to me that to a conspiracy theorist, a politician is always lying, except when he's blowing the lid of the conspiracy he's part of.
See, that's the whole point...You have provided
nothing that substantiates the claim that Rumsfeld was wrong, bar the hand wave.
Morien wrote:A quarter of a mile is a hell of a distance for a quarter ton engine to travel...., especially in a 15mph breeze as is
eight miles way too far for even small debris to travel from the supposed 'crash' site.
uke2se wrote:THE WIND DIDN'T CARRY THE ENGINE ANYWHERE. Jeez...
Well...what did? You have provided
nothing in explanation, I note....