Evidence STILL severely lacking for Flight 93 mostly buried claim

So if everyone reports that the plane was mostly buried and there is nobody but you saying it WASN'T mostly buried, there is your evidence. Do you have evidence the MSM and everyone involved at Shanksville and the investigation are lying? Please don't point to killtowns ignorant bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That little twit couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag with instructions, scissors, and high explosives to help him. He couldn't defend his own work, and from the looks of things, neither could you.

 

You never saw the media report that most of the plane buried? Really?

 

Are you ever going to prove your claim, or are you going to be like Hannibal?

 

Apparently you didn't, either.

 

No I have. Either you forgot you have or are lying that you haven't. Considering your track record, it's obvious which one it is.

 

Ad Hom attacks. A sure sign that someone has lost the debate.

 

Well I've defended all my claims. It's you who hasn't defended yours:

Gonna anytime soon?

 

No actually the deal was . . .

I provided evidence.

Now, post your evidence please.

As a reminder

You said . . .

I'm assuming you would not say that if you didn't know it to be true. Do you have any evidence or proof that that's what happened or are you just making it up?

If you are making it up and have no proof, just say so.

 

Except for this one.

You said . . .

I'm assuming you would not say that if you didn't know it to be true. Do you have any evidence or proof that that's what happened or are you just making it up?

If you are making it up and have no proof, just say so.

 

Maybe it got buried in a heap of soft, damp dung, and the sceptics,because of the obnoxious smell, are too scared to go near it or touch it, in case they discover the obvious (to everybody else) truth that it was brought down by fanatical Muslim terrorists. Everybody else knows that,don't they?

 

Yeah, evidence most of the plane buried (i.e. the OP), or concede that claim was a lie. I didn't see how the little video you posted provided any evidence of that. Please post the timestamp if it did and I'll recheck.

 

Again.

which I did. It did not convince you. No surprise there. That does not change the fact that I provided evidence as you asked for.

Now please show that you are a person of integrity and uphold your end of the deal.

 

What did your evidence supposedly prove in relation to the OP (the three little words after the words you bolded)?

 

That most of the debris were buried.

Now are you a person of integrity who will hold up your end of the deal that you put forth or are you going to change the terms and ask more questions?

 

Well that's what I was looking for, but didn't see any. What's the timestamp in that video that discusses that? If it shows proof, then I'll live up to my end of the deal.

 

Guess which ...

Yup, just like always. 'Truthers' pretend the evidence and sources don't exist, then demand the goalposts get moved again and again. Predictable, yet entertaining.

 

Choosing the path of no integrity? I see.

Lets's review.

Originally I stated . . .

To which you replied . . .

I asked for proof.

You responded with . . .

I provided evidence, as was stated in your original "deal" in Post #64 in the form of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/9/xkivdEGph9A
and asked that you provide what you agreeed to.

You then tried to change the terms of the deal.

when all one has to do is read your first quote to see what the deal was.

Then you tried to change the terms again.

And yet a THIRD time you tried to change the terms of the deal.

Did you forget what you posted in beginning?

You also stated that

which is ironic since you still haven't defended this one.

or this one

Your lack of integrity is on parade for all to see. So I'll ask again,

I'm assuming you would not make these claims if you didn't know them to be true. Do you have any evidence or proof that that's what happened or are you just making it up?

If you are making it up and have no proof, just say so and we'll move on.

 

We've already pointed out your false dichotomy in the past.

I've seen this type of argument so many times. It's a common tactic used by people without actual evidence to support their foregone conclusions. They probe for places in the argument they find to be weak or ambiguous, and try to use that to insinuate that the more impervious areas of the argument are false, or suspect.

If one aspect of an argument is ambiguous or even shown to be false, that does not make the whole argument false. If the government is shown to be false in one aspect of their story, that does not prove their entire story false.

To specifically address suede's fallacy, ambiguity on the amount of wreckage recovered, or the specific locations it was recovered from, does not constitute proof of a lie, and it certainly does not discredit any other statements made by the government, or other pieces of evidence that support the government's story.

What's ironic about the whole charade is that suede's conclusion does not satisfy the criteria of his own argument. Where's the proof that anyone lied about the percentage of recovered wreckage? Where's the photographs of people planting evidence?

 

Well I've asked for a copy/paste from an article and a timestamp from a video that shows the evidence I "pretend" to not see. Funny haven't gotten what I asked for if the evidence really did exist!

Oooooooooooh the irony!

 

No, just pointing out you haven't lived up to your end of the deal yet.

And for the 3rd time, where in that video does it show proof that you say prove that most of the plane buried? If the video shows this proof, then I'll live up to my end of the deal. Not sure why you didn't comprehend this the last time I told you?

 

So how would you explain this scenario:

Officials said 95% of plane was recovered. Debris above ground adds up to 15% of said plane. They said rest was buried. But nothing was really buried.

What should a normal rational person think if the above scenario turned out to be true?

From the lack of evidence to prove the "official" claim. Hint: read the title of this thread.

Response to that can be summed up with:

 

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Sorry. You're going to have to do better then that. First of all, as I've already stated, your dichotomy is false. Not being able to prove to some guy on the internet that 95% of the plane was recovered, or that most of it was found underground, does not prove the completely different statement that the FBI lied. Especially since your burden of proof necessarily requires evidence that can be displayed on the internet. If you were really interested in this event, you would contact the people who were there.

Beyond that, whether the FBI lied or the FBI told the truth are not the only two options.

You think that the FBI lied about the crash. Do you have any evidence of this lie?

And as a side note, the "official" claim is not dependent on the amount of wreckage recovered, or the location of it's recovery. It's supported by Airline records, Flight data, radar data, recorded phone calls, Air traffic controller testimony, family testimony, local witness testimony, first responder testimony,

Your evidence is an emoticon? I'm astonished that no one finds your argument credible.

 

It's as easy as contacting any of the hundreds of people who worked the scene. Contact info has even been provided.

So easy, yet 'truthers' can't seem to manage even this.

 

I comprehend just fine. But you are asking for additional conditions that were not part of your "deal". Not sure why you keep wanting to change the terms. Not sure why you won't live up to your original deal which was . . .

You did not stipulate any other conditions other than providing evidence, which I did.

Why is it that you insist on changing the terms now? Is it that you have no evidence and never intended to hold up your end of the deal in the first place?

 

Says who?

And if they don't respond back, then what are we supposed to do? You can contact them to to see if you get better results, or even better, ask your buddy to simply post his claimed evidence in hand and simply put this debate to rest. Why do you think he won't do that?!

Yes, the severe lack of evidence that it supposedly buried.

Then please explain this scenario for me (that you conveniently skipped):

Officials said 95% of plane was recovered. Debris above ground adds up to 15% of said plane. They said rest was buried. But nothing was really buried.

What should a normal rational person think if the above scenario turned out to be true?

No, the emoticons represent what I think about what has to be one of the most ridiculous questions I've ever heard!!! They'd publish photos of themselves planting evidence, really?!!