Thread: Evidence STILL severely lacking for Flight 93 mostly buried claim

Skeptics claim that when Flight 93 supposedly crashed in that field in Shanksville, this is what supposedly happened to most of the plane:

CLAIM: "The people on the scene confirmed for me that the plane was mostly buried."

"I believe the people on the scene, and they say the majority of UA93 was buried at the scene of the crash."

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



Me: "Flight 93 recovered underground?" Skeptic: "Most of it, yes."

You would think if a massive Boeing 757 mostly buried in the ground, it would be super easy for that to be proved.

HOWEVER, we truthers have asked and asked and asked and asked for the skeptics to prove this extraordinary claim that most of the 757 buried, but to no avail.

How can most of a 757 bury in the ground and that not be easily proven by the skeptics?!?

Some skeptics give an extraordinary claim that they have "proof" that most of Flight 93 was buried, but for some odd reason, they keep refusing to to produce this evidence to prove their extraordinary claim, even when I offered to never post here again if they do!

There is only two logical reasons why skeptics can't prove most of Flight 93 buried and why they won't post the evidence of their claimed proof that it was:

1) they have no evidence because
2) nothing was buried.

If nothing was buried, this proves an inside job.

Originally Posted by suede

Skeptics claim that when Flight 93 supposedly crashed in that field in Shanksville, this is what supposedly happened to most of the plane:



You would think if a massive Boeing 757 mostly buried in the ground, it would be super easy for that to be proved.

HOWEVER, we truthers have asked and asked and asked and asked for the skeptics to prove this extraordinary claim that most of the 757 buried, but to no avail.

How can most of a 757 bury in the ground and that not be easily proven by the skeptics?!?

Some skeptics give an extraordinary claim that they have "proof" that most of Flight 93 was buried, but for some odd reason, they keep refusing to to produce this evidence to prove their extraordinary claim, even when I offered to never post here again if they do!

There is only two logical reasons why skeptics can't prove most of Flight 93 buried and why they won't post the evidence of their claimed proof that it was:

1) they have no evidence because
2) nothing was buried.

If nothing was buried, this proves an inside job.

What do you think happened on 9/11?

I think it was a false-flag attack and nothing buried in Shanksville.

I expect the next post by a skeptic in this thread to be proof that most of Flight 93 had buried, thereby debunking this thread.

Anything else means they can't debunk it.

Originally Posted by suede

I think it was a false-flag attack and nothing buried in Shanksville.

So there was no plane crash in Shanksville?

A bunch of witnesses say otherwise.

Thanks for proving me right!

Originally Posted by suede

Anything else means they can't debunk it.

Originally Posted by suede

If nothing was buried, this proves an inside job.

Whew, that's a relief. Since some of it buried, as evidenced by the fact that they had to dig stuff up, then I guess that disproves an inside job.

Case closed and we can move on.

NEXT!!

Originally Posted by DDave

Since some of it buried, as evidenced by the fact that they had to dig stuff up

Digging up dirt and rocks doesn't count. Nor does digging a hole, placing an engine scrap in it along with a few small non-UA colored pieces.

Originally Posted by suede

Nor does digging a hole, placing an engine scrap in it along with a few small non-UA colored pieces.

Any proof of that? Evidence?

No? I didn't think so. Must be just another alternative theory.

NEXT!!

Originally Posted by DDave

Any proof of that? Evidence?

LoL. That's kinda a "Pot meet Kettle" response for this thread!

Tell you what, provide evidence for the OP or concede defeat on it and I'll provide what you asked for. Deal?