Flight 93 recovered underground?

I am not an 'official source'. You continue to avoid the question, which is natural, since it's a straw man argument anyway.

As for percentages, the OP raises it:

Can you provide any support of that straw man argument? No? OK.

 

I didn't. Rightwingfraud did.

I didn't know that "most" was a specific percentage, but the FBI said they recovered 95% of the 757. Were they lying? I think so!

You... really... have... no... clue?

I have a question, if debris was planted by professionals, how would there be "concrete evidence" the debris was planted? What should I be looking for?

Where did we make that a basis that there was a specific percentage of wreckage from below the surface of the Earth in our OPs?

 

So you believe most of the plane was buried, claim it's a "fact," but are still asking for an official source???

So is your whining about the % buried, or recovered in total? I wish you'd make up your mind.

 

No - you created the original thread. (Remember, you were 'talking' to a 'guy' at a 'bar' ...)

You created the straw man, 'Fraud tried to support it by lending his voice.

The OP made the claim ... in the OP.

You still have no support for your false claim. Cite an official report that makes such a claim.

Or continue to dodge. Your choice.

 

I didn't say this thread. I said the original thread. Please take your time and read things carefully before you respond.

You are being disingenuous again. It's not helping your argument to try and back away from your past statements. It's not a bright thing to do on a written forum for obvious reasons.

A psychiatrist. Debris was not planted, therefore there is no way to find evidence that supports your belief.

So now you do remember creating the original thread. Remember what I wrote above about statements you make on a written forum? You look silly when you try to hide from them. You look even sillier when you do it in the same post.

 

Reading for comprehension is your friend. You claimed it was an 'official position'. You have yet to show any proof of this.

You still haven't backed up your own premise.

 

Stop lying

Stop lying

Stop lying

 

I'm not dodging, I just don't understand your rational. You say you believe most was buried, even say it's a "fact," but now you need a cite from an official report that fact is true? Do I have that right?

 

Are you saying the FBI didn't say 95% of the plane was recovered in total?

Source?

Yes, it was about most of the plane supposedly being in the ground. Got any proof most of the plane was? We've been asking and searching for a while now for proof.

 

No, you still have it wrong. I'm asking for any official report that supports the OP's premise.
At this point you are either simply unable to understand or you're just playing games. Either way, you have failed to support the OP.

 

Most definitely the latter. It's his M.O.

 

So did I read your position correctly?

So it's not a "fact" that most of the plane was buried? I mean that's our position!

We showed there is a substantial lack of evidence proving most of the plane had buried.

 

That's not the premise. As you stated yourself:

You have yet to show any official position stating this.

 

So now your position is that most of the plane was buried? Your dodging has made you dizzy.

It's not a 'fact' that you can support the OP.

 

Are you denying now that you said let's compare the % of Flight 93 crashing vs. the % of it didn't? Do you want me to post it for the 3rd time?

Anyways, I'm still willing to play your % comparison game. Before we start, I need to know what % of the plane was buried and what % was recovered in total.

 

You didn't take my advice to read carefully before posting, did you?

What I wrote is there for you to read. I suggest you read it.

I don't need a source to prove a negative. There is no such thing as a source that proves a negative. Debris was not planted. If you have evidence that debris was planted I'd like to know about it.

And you've been given photographic evidence, witness testimony, as well as the contact information for the witnesses, logical evidence the the form of reconstruction of expected results, and documented evidence. Each of these types of evidence support the premise that a plane crashed at high speed in Shanksville.

None of the evidence suggests that plane parts were planted by professionals.

 

You're the one enthralled by percentages, I merely used language you could slurp on.

Do you lie 80% of the time, or just most of the time?

 

Let's see, you say you believe most of the plane buried, even said it's a "fact," and you accuse me of playing games?

 

Seems to be your official position:

"The links address the fact that most of the plane was recovered on that site, largely from within the earth."

 

No, I meant we think it's a fact that nothing was buried, hence a conspiracy.

 

Are you saying most of the plane wasn't buried? That's kinda our position too.

Well that's what I was trying to ask you, if debris was planted, what signs should I be looking for to be able to prove it to you?

Which supports the premise that "Flight 93 was recovered underground?"

No? How much blood was observed at the scene?

 

And yet your convoluted abstract attempt to create evidence for a conspiracy does not address the inherent logical flaw in your premise.

Where's the plane?
Where's the passengers?
What caused the sound witnesses heard?
What caused the fires?
Where did the smell of jet fuel come from?
Where did the human remains found on site come from?

Why does it make more sense to stage a plane crash with planted evidence then it does to actually crash a plane?

 

No, you guys are enthralled that you think I'm enthralled by percentages. We've been asking to show evidence that most of plane was buried. I'm not sure any of us asked to show evidence that [insert % here] was buried.

So are you going to play your own % comparison game, or not? I'm willing.

 

That's kinda what we've been asking too!

I'm focused on the claim that most of the plane had buried. You guys seem to always wanting to change the focus on whether a plane crashed, or not. Why is that when the topic of the thread is called: Flight 93 recovered underground?

As soon as this topic is resolved, we can move on to the next line of inquiry.

 

I'm saying read what I wrote. Do you need a to revisit your English lessons? Each of the things you wrote after the phrase "are you saying" have been invented from whole cloth. I did not write those things, I did not even hint at those things. What I'm saying is what I wrote. Go back and read it again if you're not sure what I'm saying. I don't think anyone else here is having difficulty parsing what I'm saying, and I'm quite sure that your confusion on the matter is feigned.

Debris was not planted by professionals in an attempt to stage a plane crash in Shanksville. There are no signs to look for.

Who are you quoting? Ask them what supports their premise.

Observed by whom? The coroner identified the remains of all of the victims listed on the passenger list of flight 93. In total, 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg) were recovered. No professionals planted 600 pounds of human remains belonging to the passengers listed on the passenger list of flight 93 on the Shanksville site.