Flight 93 recovered underground?

I keep trying to find some evidence that Flight 93 was buried underground and that it was recovered. It is claimed that 93 was recovered 40 plus feet down. We've never been shown any evidence of this. Anyone who has some, please show it to us. If all you can present is a hole, with dime sized dots of grey something, please post that too. I'm trying to figure out how they determined that it was 95% recovered. We should be able to arrive at around 95% or so of the "official" weight of a 747. I'm wondering if that 95% was all dime sized pieces, or if there might be something a bit bigger, or if they just weighed all the little dots and pronounced it 95% complete.
Thanks.

 

1 min clip,

see the 15sec to the 35 sec mark.

Explains fully how they found it underground.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wAnVuWuFQI"]Frontios had the same problem[/ame]


things were always buried for some reason

 

Really? Have you been excavating the site?

 

there is a pic of the engine that was found underground in the gubbermint exhibit records. LOL

I am sure candy can post it for you it.

 

Here's a picture of an engine at the crash site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight93Engine.jpg

Here's a piece of the fuselage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P200061.jpg

... and it was a 757, not a 747.

 

Where has it been claimed?

 

I've seen drunks weave less than this. Grab the wheel and straighten that fail-mobile out.

 

Nope. At least I haven't seen any evidence that comes close to supporting that.

 

I think RtWngaFraud showed how that engine was planted -- hint: it's right next to the engine. It explains why that's the only piece of debris seen being dug out of the ground even though 80 percent of the 757 was supposedly in the ground!

He's talking about parts recovered underground. I have a question though, where was this piece found -- like specifically?

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010915blackbox0915p3.asp

 

Parts were found all over the place, and even in the trees. It must have taken those government agents ages to plant all those thousands of parts on the ground, in the ground, in the lake, in the trees...

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010929somerset0929p3.asp

It probably took them as long as it did to surreptitiously plant all those explosives in the WTC towers without anyone noticing. Cecil B Demille would be jealous of that cast of thousands.

 

80 percent of the 757 was supposedly in the ground. I don't see how a pair of black boxes equaling .08 of a 757 comes close.

 

In the ground, on the ground, in the trees, in the lake....

 

"Might have."

And just to let you know what the thread topic is about:

"Flight 93 recovered underground?"

not in the trees.

 

Followed immediately by: "Some pieces of the aircraft -- most no larger than one square foot -- have already been found because of the bad weather, he said"

You dulled your fillet knife long ago.

 

This thread is just concerned about the alleged LARGE amounts of debris in the ground and FYI, one engine and two black boxes don't come close to proving 80 percent of the 757 was in the ground.

 

To your edit: In the ground, on the ground, in the trees, in the lake....

This thread was a failure from it's opening post. Go read it.

 

Why wouldn't they find debris that was planted?

 

This thread is purely concerned about cherry picking and parsing to support disingenuous Truther arguments. As was your thread. Suede meet 'Fraud, chicken meet egg.

 

What disingenuous Truther arguments?

 

RtWngaFraud,

Doesn't NAB's response to this thread indicate that the skeptics are terrified of this subject?!

 

Time to step out of the way once the fluffing starts.

 

Bump for NAB

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/196971-flight-93-recovered-underground.html#post4178449

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182383-heres-good-one.html#post3766037

 

Which claim about the official story is disingenuous? Are you saying that the official story isn't saying most of the United 757 was below ground?