Flight 93 recovered underground?

So that's a no, you're not going to explain what you mean as if I were a simpleton?

 

Yay the tinfoil hat guys are back...

 

Horse, water, etc.

 

Well folks...as you can see, there is NO evidence supporting the claim that Flight 93 was found "mostly buried underground". Ask yourselves, if they had it, wouldn't it have shown up by now? It hasn't because there isn't any.

So to the next level. Why would they claim that to begin with? Think about it. If Flight 93 wasn't underground, as they wanted everyone to believe, then where was it and why wouldn't they just say so specifically?

It was shot down folks. That's why. That's the reason an engine was a half mile away. The earth didn't suck down 80% or more of the plane, and toss an engine a half mile away. The engine was a half mile away, because that's where it landed after it became separated by the missile that was fired upon Flight 93. That's why you don't see major chunks of debris in or around the associated hole. That's why there are no photos of pieces of the plane in the hole, because it didn't happen that way, and to show actual photos of too many plane parts to scale with the rest of the surroundings might indicate by some landmark, next to some known piece of something, would suggest the plane was broken up over a wide area. That's why all you see are close up supposed photos of some plane, somewhere.

Flight 93 was shot down is the bottom line here. I'll leave you folks to think about the implications of that scenario for a bit. You may think, well, no big deal, they shot it down. It still doesn't prove anything. I submit that it does prove something much, much bigger than an errant flight they (would claim I'm sure that they "had to shoot it down) were chasing/monitoring/shadowing. There was a very good reason why 93 was shot down, but getting to that requires some lucid thought and some common sense.

I await non shill responses. Good day.

 

The claim was made in the OP about an official account. Where is this official account?

Link please.

 

Back, on, ignore.



RtWngaFraud,

do yourself a favor and put NAB on ignore too. He's worthless to have an intelligent debate with. He just likes to troll.

 

Take the shills away and there isn't anybody left to debate. I'll strongly consider it.

No 93 evidence still huh? What a surprise.

 

Hey...there's a sh...a person on another forum (named Hooper) who posts an awful lot like a certain somebody in here. Anybody know is those two are one in the same? Thanks.
Flight 93 proof....going once....

 

Looks like the sockpuppet's feelings are hurt.

 

My thread went 56 pages without convincing evidence almost the entire plane was buried and your thread is already at 6 pages with no convincing evidence either, so I think it's safe to say nothing was buried or we would have seen convincing evidence by now.

 

I'm sure the sockpuppet has me on ignore, but I'll write this anyway in an effort to appeal to his inner attention whoredom.

Both of these threads you referenced were based on strawmen arguments. When no one "debunks" your disingenuous premises, you don't get to crow victory.

It's been stated multiple times: the debris of United 93 was found in the ground, on the ground, in the trees, in the lake, etc. Photos from the scene back this up. Meanwhile, you back up your strawman with what?

Carry on lamb chop.

 

I found one photo of a dumpster half filled with debris allegedly from PA site.

 

Well, that certainly is convincing. LOL

Evidence of Flight 93 buried underground and "mostly" recovered.....going twice.

 

Evidence of any official report claiming it was buried underground ... going three times.

You propped up a straw man, then asked for evidence of it. Not very 'truthful'.

 

I keep trying to find evidence that anyone made this claim. Do you have any?

 

That's what one does when the end goal isn't seeking truth when they are actually aiming for a reach-around in celebration.

That's how you win the internets.

 

The skeptics are so desperate they are now trying to say the official story never said that! Their insanity knows no bounds.

 

Can you show evidence that the 'official story' ever claimed that 93 was "recovered 40 plus feet down"? (That's what the OP states.)

Dodge noted.

 

What part of your "evidence," is more than conjecture? You present NO evidence, yet claim others lack of evidence is your proof. Of nothing at all.

 

Well if you don't provide evidence to support part of the official narrative, doesn't that more or less prove that part is untrue? I mean it's not like it's a minuscule part of the official narrative. It's a HUGE part of the official narrative!!!

 

Can you show evidence that the 'official narrative' ever claimed that 93 was "recovered 40 plus feet down"? (That's what the OP states.)

Dodge noted.

 

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less. Monkeys can understand that.

And Liberals gripe about "Birthers!"

 

Are you agreeing that there is a lack of evidence to one of the government's biggest claims about the alleged Flight 93 crash?

Are you a birther?

 

Can you show evidence that 'one of the government's biggest claims' is that 93 was "recovered 40 plus feet down"? (That's what the OP states.)

Dodge noted.

 

no and no......