Thread: Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

Originally Posted by 10aces

Where are the photos of the bouncing engine?

Lots of photos, but none of the engines, recovery, transportation, etc, etc, etc.

Answer the question.

Are you saying all of the exhibits and info on this page are faked?

Truthers are claiming the reason you don't see much plane debris at the Shanksville site even though the FBI stated that they eventually recovered 95% of the plane was because most of the plane debris had been planted.

However the evidence produced so far in the 10 long years since 9/11 to support this claim is severely lacking, so the most obvious conclusion is that the claim was just made up to further their agenda.

Think of it logically, why would conspirators haul pieces of 757 wreckage to the scene to plant, creating more risk for them? And where is the evidence of these activities taking place?

Since they can't answer those questions logically, the truthers just invented a story about how the conspirators didn't want to haul about 60 tons or so of 757 wreckage to the scene so they decided to say most of the plane got buried so they wouldn't have to bring much debris to stage and they would never have to show all that alleged buried debris.

It wasn't that great of a plan although it did fool most of the truthers.

Originally Posted by DDave

Nothing but it does establish that eyewitnesses said that there were debris everywhere.

This thread is only concerned about the alleged debris in the ground.

The logic -- or lack there of. Their facts and assertions don't support their conclusion. It's nothing more than circumstantial evidence, cherry picked facts and assumptions.

You guys must have watched different videos. The videos pointed out numerous oddities that added up pointed to those pieces of debris being staged.


Seems like you forgot to answer this question:

"Well that's the issue, where was most of that "recovered 95%" of the plane after this supposed crash? It's got to be somewhere, right?"

If you find that FBI involvement in the investigation of the crash mysterious, then I am pretty sure that NO evidence would be accepted by you and would be dismissed as faked or just another part of the "conspiracy".

If the crash was staged, who would be your first suspects?

But I am curious, if you accept the fact that Flight 93 crashed there and was not shot down, what does the fact that no one can prove to your satisfaction that most of it was buried matter? And how does that prove that the debris photos were staged? Would you require photos of enough debris to reconstruct an entire 757? And what source for these photographs would you trust?

I don't necessarily accept that Flight 93 crashed there. Just as right now, I don't accept the official word that most of the plane was in the ground and I don't accept that those three supposedly unearthed debris pieces are genuine.

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

Repeated opportunities to present ANY proof of Flight 93 buried. None offered, AGAIN.
Psssst...that's probably because, guess what...IT WASN'T BURIED, and therefore, THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE TO PRESENT, because, well, IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

well,'evidence' of the black boxes being 'planted,of engine parts being 'planted'.....THAT part,to start with

But the video DID show evidence they were planted. How can that = fabricating?!? They showed evidence and gave opinions.

Originally Posted by DDave

Okay . . . where is your proof that it wasn't buried?

See the OP and we are still looking for proof it was. Got any?

Originally Posted by suede

This thread is only concerned about the alleged debris in the ground.

Just as right now, I don't accept the official word that most of the plane was in the ground.

What 'official word' is that?

Originally Posted by suede

But the video DID show evidence they were planted. How can that = fabricating?!? They showed evidence and gave opinions.

They show ZERO evidence that the boxes were planted. They stated what seemed to be "oddities" to them. Which by themselves are evidence of nothing. Then they gave the opinion that the the objects were planted.

How they arrived at that conclusion based on their assertions is clear. How they could do so logically is another matter entirely.

It went something like this.

Here are photos of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder being recovered from some other plane crashes.

Here are photos of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder being recovered from the crash of Flight 93.

The pictures look nothing alike.

Therefore, the photos of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder being recovered from the crash of Flight 93 were staged with fake black boxes.

I'm sorry but a reasonable person would not come to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by suede

But the video DID show evidence they were planted. How can that = fabricating?!? They showed evidence and gave opinions.

The video did NOT show anything being 'planted',you're seeing things that didn't happen

Originally Posted by DDave

They show ZERO evidence that the boxes were planted. They stated what seemed to be "oddities" to them. Which by themselves are evidence of nothing. Then they gave the opinion that the the objects were planted.

Just from you having to greatly emphasis the word "zero" shows you either didn't watch the videos, or are greatly biased towards them. They showed evidence. Whether you want to accept that or not is your choice.

It went something like this.

I'm sorry but a reasonable person would not come to that conclusion.

It went nothing like that. More proof you either didn't pay attention, or you are greatly biased towards it.

Got any proof most of the plane buried yet?