Flight 93 recovered underground?

I'd like to see where the claim "no plane at all found" was made? I believe there was plane debris at the scene.

OK, I'll play. But first, what was the % of evidence that UA 93 crashed and what was the % of it buried?

 

I've read your many posts. Again, this the hair which you choose to split.

 

The one you believe in?

 

No. Go back and read it again.

 

Have you already forgotten about your other stupid thread? Own your work already.

Again, own your work mr. percentages.

 

OK...

Your belief:

What am I reading wrong?

 

I said no plane debris was buried, not that no plane debris was at the scene. You don't read very well, do you?

So you agree that 80% of the 757 was buried?

 

hurr

hurr

derp

derp

Shall I report you for trolling when you're trying to attribute me with something you wrote and I just quoted? Now now...

 

You are highlighting the wrong words. I've pointed out the straw man numerous times.

You're not very good at truth seeking, are you? Once again:

Anybody find proof that the official position is that most of Flight 93 was recovered underground? No? OK.

The OP remains a straw man argument.

 

In your immature response (why you skeptics so immature like that???), where did I say I don't believe any plane debris was at the scene?

Glass houses.

I wasn't trying to do that, I was simply asking if you agree that 80% of the 757 was buried. Do you agree that 80% of the 757 was buried? If not, what %? And what was the total % of the plane recovered?

I need to know these %'s from you in order to play your % game that you initiated.

 

Oh, so it's like this:

Hannibal: "I don't believe the official position is that most of Flight 93 was buried, but I believe most of Flight 93 was buried."

Do I have that right now?

 

You espoused the theory that the plane was planted there, which you parroted from the only person on the net (who's been banned on every forum possible) who pushes this agenda. Own it.

Btw, being called immature by the likes of you is cute.

You're the one constantly demanding a percentage, not me. Jesus, own your frickin' work. You seem to have the attention span of a humming bird.

I've stated numerous times: the debris was found in the ground, on the ground, in the trees, in the lake....

The photos from the site back this up. The accounts from the site back this up.

I'm not fixated on what exact percentage was recovered, but I am interested in how ALL of the debris that was found can be attributed to UA 93.

Now, where are the facts that the official stance was a particular percentage OR back up your theory that the plane was planted there. Put up or shut up, if not, please put me back on ignore.

 

No, it's more like this:

Suede: I don't have any evidence that anyone has made an official statement about the exact percentage of plane mass found below the surface of the Earth, so I'll continue to dance around the subject to try and create the illusion that there's some sort of flaw in the official account of events that took place in Shanksville.

Sane people: What in the hell is your point? What does the exact percentage of mass found below the surface of the Earth have to do with the events that took place on that day?

 

Right on the mark

 

Despite your attempt to change the subject to me, this thread is not about me.

The OP makes a claim. I've asked numerous times for someone to support that claim. So far, no one has been able to.

Anybody find proof that the official position is that most of Flight 93 was recovered underground? No? OK.

The OP remains a straw man argument.

 

Spot on. I anticipate more 'truther' dancing, though.

 

Yeah, so what's your problem?

Your attention spam seems to be even shorter:

OK, so what are the percentages so we can play your # game?

Then why did you initiate that percentages game?

Such as?

About the 95% recovered?

 

You know the only people who seem to be fixated on exact percentages buried is you skeptics!

Intelligent people would know that answer.

 

Parsed, clipped, and cherry picked.

The percentage game is all yours suede, not mine.

 

Thanks for providing another example.

Can you provide any support of the OP straw man argument? No? OK.

 

Now looks who's dodging questions!

Yeah, some guy named "Hannibal" apparently did. Claims it's a "fact." Check my new sig.

 

Your obsession with me is flattering.

Can you provide any support of the OP straw man argument? No? OK.

 

Hmm, I could of swore the percentage game was initiated by a poster named "NAB". Yep, I was right:

I'm still willing to play your percentages game, NAB!

 

That's certainly disingenuous. Why did you create the original thread? Why have you continuously stated that official sources made an assertion that couldn't be backed up with evidence? Why did you consistently use a specific percentage in your comments? You obviously feel the exact location of debris is important. Why do you feel that way?

I'll answer for you, since you won't. You're trying to establish evidence for the argument that debris was planted on the scene. Since you have no concrete evidence that debris was planted on scene you have to take this convoluted abstract approach. The only claims I have ever seen were clearly based on the percentage of wreckage recovered from the site, and this is a claim which you have no way to dispute.

Now that your original argument is reduced to a straw man, the whole discussion has become a strained attempt to completely reverse the argument since we've established that there was no official claim of the percentage of wreckage from below the surface of the Earth.

 

Looks like you can:

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

You said it's a "fact," so there you go.