Simple request for Flight 93

I still wish I understood why it's so important to establish the exact location of the debris. So far the "killtown" argument seems to be:

1. Establish that the FBI claimed the entire aircraft was buried.
2. Demand to see photographs of an entire aircraft removed from the ground.
3. If such photographs cannot be produced the FBI lied about 1 and then planted evidence on the scene.

To me it's a completely illogical argument. It's based on a straw man position, begs the question of the strawman, and then completely denies the antecedent.

The statement:

1. If the plane was buried its recovery could be photographed.

creates the logical fallacy:

2. There were not enough photographs therefore the plane was not buried.

What's most confusing to me is how this fallacious argument is supposed to refute all the other sources of evidence surrounding the crash.

1. The rescue worker testimony
2. The flight data / tracking
3. The victim testimony / family member testimony
4. The forensic evidence / DNA recovery

How does not enough photographs of debris be enough evidence to turn rescue workers, the FBI the NTSB, the families, the victims, and the forensic scientists all into liars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

I still wish I understood why it's so important to establish the exact location of the debris. So far the "killtown" argument seems to be:

1. Establish that the FBI claimed the entire aircraft was buried.
2. Demand to see photographs of an entire aircraft removed from the ground.
3. If such photographs cannot be produced the FBI lied about 1 and then planted evidence on the scene.

To me it's a completely illogical argument. It's based on a straw man position, begs the question of the strawman, and then completely denies the antecedent.

The statement:

1. If the plane was buried its recovery could be photographed.

creates the logical fallacy:

2. There were not enough photographs therefore the plane was not buried.

What's most confusing to me is how this fallacious argument is supposed to refute all the other sources of evidence surrounding the crash.

1. The rescue worker testimony
2. The flight data / tracking
3. The victim testimony / family member testimony
4. The forensic evidence / DNA recovery

How does not enough photographs of debris be enough evidence to turn rescue workers, the FBI the NTSB, the families, the victims, and the forensic scientists all into liars?

---

It's just the typical Truther wedge technique coupled with a massive amount of well established and experienced trolling.

Eventually, PF will just be another notch in the headboard.......

Quote:

---

the typical Truther wedge technique

---

The typical truther wedge technique is highly irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

The typical truther wedge technique is highly irrational.

---

All things being "equal" and all.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

How does not enough photographs of debris be enough evidence to turn rescue workers, the FBI the NTSB, the families, the victims, and the forensic scientists all into liars?

---

Maybe that is covered in the Jumping to Erroneous Conclusions 101 course offered at the Killtown Academy of Logic and Critical Thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

For someone who's entire argument rests on semantics and syntax

---

Um, sounds like that's YOU skeptics who are whining over the words "most" and "much." LOL

Quote:

---

The article says that much of the plane was buried. If much of the plane is buried then part of the plane is buried. By the way, most of the plane also encompasses part of the plane.

---

If you take what DDave said out of context, which you are doing, it does seem trivial.

Quote:

---

And might I say, what a lame claim to rest your case on either way.

---

So lame you skeptics haven't been able to prove that most of the plane buried?

Quote:

---

Here we see again the major issue with your reading comprehension. The article clearly states where the debris was located. First responders immediately noticed what looked like trash everywhere. contextual hint for Suede:, this is part debris associated with the recovery of the plane. The article says they saw parts of the landing gear, an engine, and a piece of the fuselage about the size of a car hood. contextual hint for Suede:, this is part debris associated with the recovery of the plane. The article says the impact shot debris into the bordering woods and into a nearby pond. contextual hint for Suede:, this is part debris associated with the recovery of the plane.

---

I'm only concerned about the claim of how much was supposedly buried which Hannibal claims to have confirmed it was "most." Or do you think Hannibal is lying?

Quote:

---

So again, suede, your premise that the FBI lied based on a statement that "most" of the aircraft buried underground is clearly a false premise.

---

Well no one has proven that most (or "much" LOL) of Flight 93 buried as the official story says, so where's the false premise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

Um, sounds like that's YOU skeptics who are whining over the words "most" and "much." LOL


If you take what DDave said out of context, which you are doing, it does seem trivial.


So lame you skeptics haven't been able to prove that most of the plane buried?


I'm only concerned about the claim of how much was supposedly buried which Hannibal claims to have confirmed it was "most." Or do you think Hannibal is lying?


Well no one has proven that most (or "much" LOL) of Flight 93 buried as the official story says, so where's the false premise?

---

Is your zero buried claim taken out of context?

Keep ignoring this thread, but I'm going to post it every time you make YET ANOTHER one of your bs response posts. Come on brave internet warrior......

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/2...93-buried.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suede

I'm only concerned about the claim of how much was supposedly buried which Hannibal claims to have confirmed it was "most." Or do you think Hannibal is lying?

---

The only reason you are "concerned" about the claim is that you want to try and pretend that if the FBI lied about that, then they lied about everything else. So you set up a scenario where the only "judge" of what constitutes evidence is you, and, of course, you reject all evidence.

It is an extremely childish tactic, but one you wish to explore. GREAT! I love it when truthers demonstrate to anyone and everyone reading their crap just how ignorant and childish their claims are.

Keep it up, suede. The more you duck the questions and the more you insist nothing is evidence the more ridiculous your position is proven to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDave

Does "much" = "most"?

---

Does it not in every situation?

Let me remind you Wally Miller said the explanation was "2/3" of the plane buried (equaling most), an Ambassador at the Flight 93 memorial said "80%" of the plane buried (equaling most), Hannibal claims Shanks workers confirmed to him that "most" of the plane buried.

FBI's website about the Shanksville recovery said "Buried in the ground" followed by saying "much" of the plane was, which "much" means "great in quantity," consistent with "2/3," "80%," and "most."

So what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Well if you won't accept photographic evidence

---

Please show me photo evidence that a "great quantity" of Flight 93 buried. Haven't seen any yet.

Quote:

---

Were they just supposed to pile it in the field while they were going through it?

---

Hard to think that after digging up supposedly TONS and TONS and TONS of plane debris and sifting through all of it that they didn't pile up all the alleged TONS and TONS and TONS of plane debris somewhere at the scene afterward until they were done excavating.

But regardless, where was that TONS and TONS and TONS of alleged excavated plane debris after being excavated and before allegedly being given to United Airlines? I'm having a hard time believing all that amount of debris could be missed.

Quote:

---

Then you agree there is photographic evidence but you can't refute it. You just refuse to accept it.

---

No, it's more like you skeptics will refuse to accept it's been refuted, but the topic is not "some" of the plane buried, it is a "great quantity" got buried and we want to see proof of that which you skeptics haven't proven. Not even close.

Quote:

---

If they took a picture of it in its original location in the ground and still covered in dirt, it would be a bit difficult to identify, wouldn't it.

---

You totally side-stepped my question. Here it is again: "Well if you can tell me where and how this photo was taken and why the black box, which supposedly burrowed down some 20 ft through soft ground, is dirt-free, I'd appreciate it."

Quote:

---

Did killtown decide that they "wiped too much dirt off" or "more than was necessary" therefore his logical conclusion is that the photo is faked?

---

Wiped too much dirt off? Looks like they wiped ALL the dirt off! After they picked it up and set it on the piece of metal to level it for the shot, making sure the label was showing. And your obsession with Killtown is noted. You might want to seek help for that.

Quote:

---

They're your threads. Read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing things. You've rejected everything that was presented including the pictures you posted in THIS thread.

---

Show me ONE piece of most/much-plane-buried evidence I rejected. Should be easy if there was so many I "rejected."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

I still wish I understood why it's so important to establish the exact location of the debris.

---

So if officials said most of a plane was buried and turned out that nothing really was, what would you make of that?

Quote:

---

1. Establish that the FBI claimed the entire aircraft was buried.

---

Who said the "entire" plane buried?