Here is a photo released from the Moussaoui trial that is supposedly showing one of Flight 93’s engines being recovered from the crater which is "proof" that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville according to OCT’s and even some 9/11 Truthlings:
However, just look how obvious it is that this piece of engine scrap is PLANTED!!!
The small smashed up engine scrap fits neatly into the backhoe bucket (just another “coincidence” aye?!). All the perps had to do was lower this small engine scrap down a few feet with their backhoe and quickly snap a pic for their little perp engine photo-op:
Remember that we were told that the perps had to dig down to about 45ft to recover the rest of Flight 93 and then the black boxes, which are located in the tail section of the plane, where supposedly found at 15ft and 25ft below the ground and yet we are supposed to believe that one of Flight 93’s heavy and strong engines that supposedly impacted the ground at a whopping 580mph only managed to burrow down just a few of feet under the “soft soil”???
And one wonders what happened to the rest on the once large engine that’s no where seen in the crater?!
(Flight 93 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines. Photo source: clemson.edu)
The only other pieces of debris that are seen in the crater are just a few shiny and very small scraps that look placed in the crater. I guess not placing any other debris in the crater along side the engine for their little photo-op would just look a little “too obvious”!
If you look closely at the “burrowed engine,” you’ll notice that it’s not even submerged in the “soft dirt” and doesn't seem to have any dirt on it after it supposedly burrowed through the dirt at 580mph. The engine scrap also looks old and rusted:
One question would be, is this engine scrap facing up as if a plane crashed backwards?
(Note: This diagram is of an unknown type of turbine engine. Source.)
It's also interesting to note that in another Moussaoui/government close-up photo of the fake crater, they show a couple haz-mat perps that they seem to purposely want in their photo-op, but don’t want to show their faces:
So, planted engine #1!
Now, planted engine #2:
Well, there is no photographic evidence of a second engine reportedly found at the scene (how convenient for the perps, huh?), so there is no way to know if this alleged 2nd engine found was the type Flight 93 even had. It is also not clear as to what was found and where. News reports have a nearly intact engine vs. an engine fan and found in the bushes vs. found in the pond 300yds away:
“One of the Boeing 757's engines, nearly intact, was recovered, but aside from that, the largest piece of debris was no larger than a briefcase, Szupinka said.” – Washington Post (
“Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site.”
“It appears to be the whole engine,” he added." - Pittsburgh Live (
[Ernie Stull, mayor] "I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes." - Der Spiegel (
“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
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." – Popular Mechanics (03/05) New York City~"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer." - Sharon-Herald.com ( 10/08/01)
Now good ole’ Popular Mechanics seems to be saying this engine part found in the pond tumbled across the ground before landing in the pond. If it did that, it would have had to lob over the very tall tree line hugging the service road next to the crater:
(Photo taken on 9/12. Source: usinfo.state.gov)
(Photo source: BBC)
Now, of course, a pond would be a great place to plant engine debris because it would be cold when recovered so they wouldn’t have to worry about planting hot engine parts in it, but that is if there was engine debris recovered from the pond at all:
Subject: RE: Follow-up question about engine found in pond
3 Aug 2006From: "Tim Lambert"
i just checked an article i had written after my first trip to the site....it was a piece of fuselage that was recovered from the pond.
– (My email exchange with one of the landowners.)
But regardless as to whether a nearly intact engine was found in the bushes, or an engine fan was found in the pond, here’s the road the perps took to plant whatever engine parts they planted in or near the pond:
(Skyline Rd leading right up to the pond. Photo from Google Earth.)
The pond area was a perfect place for the perps to plant the second engine, or engine part. The area was secluded from the crater area and there was a road that goes straight to the pond, so no worrying about leaving tire marks through the grass field that could be spotted. Also, it eliminated the risk of having to plant two engine scraps in the crater.