How fast can skeptics prove that most of Flight 93 buried?

Good point. Since the percentage of Flight 93 recovered from under the dirt neither proves nor disproves 9/11, it just doesn't matter.

The preponderance of evidence shows the fate of 93. Petty distractions matter for nothing.

 

planes that can fly through buildings, now planes that can fly underground, what will you all think of next LMAO

 

I wish the "Official BS story" defenders would just admit there is no such evidence and move on. Either that or provide such evidence. Pretty simple thing to do either way, but instead, we have the repeated sightings of Santa Claus by whomever, but no actual evidence. It would be one thing to disagree with the OP's point of view. It is something else to claim Santa Claus sightings as proof of Santa Claus.

Joe Blow said there is an Easter bunny. Where's the proof? Well, the proof is that Joe Blow said there was.

There's no Santa, Easter bunny, or underground wreckage of flight 93. There never was. Now let's all watch the dance continue.

 

'I wish the truthers would just admit there is no such evidence'-Fixed if for you

 

And once again you rely on pretending everyone involved is lying. Back it up. Sure anyone can say anything, and when it is a lie, there are others who will stand up for the truth. Hundreds of people helped with the cleanup of Shanksville. Not ONE has stepped forward to support your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Not ONE. Yet you insist they are lying and somehow your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is true. Why is it you can't back that up? It is time to quit pretending and put forth your evidence they are lying, because without that, the only one lying is you.

 

I say at least 51% percent of the wreckage was found underground, meanwhile, the rest was found on the ground, in the trees, in the lake, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, the actual percentage found underground proves nothing, because it's an obfuscation who's purpose is to ignore the preponderance of evidence that United 93 did actually crash there. This little drama of no consequence is perpetuated by two people on the internet in an effort to spin wheels and play games, like many Truthers tactics. This particular topic is just one (or two?) person's play pretty within the Truther world.

Now, if you have any, can you provide any actual evidence that United 93 was planted in Shanksville in the thread created for that?

 

How many of them have been interviewed, or written about how they either were helping the extraction of all this alleged tons of debris coming out of the ground, or had witnessed tons coming out?

It's backed up by you skeptics being unable to prove most of the plane had buried.

Lol, you should talk!

 

Great, now got any proof that happened?

So if 95% of the plane was recovered and you think "at least 51%" was below ground, how much do you think was above?

As soon as you skeptics provide any actual evidence most of the plane buried!

How fast can you guys provide this?!

 

What does that matter? That most certainly does not prove they were lying now, does it. The point is YOU claim they were all lying about what was in the ground. Now how about you go about presenting evidence everyone invoved was lying.

Logical falacy as I am sure you are quite aware. The ability of others to verify something they were not directly invoved in has absolutely NO BEARING on whether or not the people who WERE there are lying or not. I've seen you make some retarded claims before, but you're breaking new ground!

I'm not the one calling people liars and then running away when asked to back it up. That would be you. So yes. I can talk. You should be going about proving everyone involved is lying. Unless of course you can't.... Don't worry. We all know the answer to that one.

 

In other words, suede is going to do nothing but dance for us. What a waste of time!

 

9 pages,

How fast can skeptics prove that most of Flight 93 buried?

 

Just turning your own logic back on you.

 

You are aware that paging on this board is arbitrary and whining about how many pages is just a childish tactic, right? For instance, right now on my browser, we're on page 5.

So how about answering the question? How do you know everyone involved was lying? Pretending that because nobody can respond to an unrealistic and unreachable level of satisfaction to you is proof they are lying is still a retarded claim. Are you sticking by that?

 

No, you're running away from answering the cornerstone of your entire bull(*)(*)(*)(*) argument. Without proving everyone involved was lying, you have no basis on disbelieving that most of the plane wasn't buried. Yet here you are. Pretending everyone is lying without a shred of evidence to back that up.

Any chance you'll actually back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? Thought I would ask and see if you'll be honest about it.

 

OK...

5 pages,

How fast can skeptics prove that most of Flight 93 buried?

How many of the workers have been interviewed, or written about how they either were helping the extraction of all this alleged tons of debris coming out of the ground, or had witnessed tons coming out?

 

Thanks for proving you're not able to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims.

Numerous people have been interviewed as to seeing the plane in the ground. Photographs have been taken. Reports have been written. These are all facts that have been presented to you.

It is your position that all these people are lying.

Back it up or run away yet again.

 

OK, let's start with them. Links?

 

You've been given them NUMEROUS times. Present your evidence everyone involved is lying. Quit running around and present your evidence or man up and admit you've been lying this entire time. You don't need a link to present your evidence. Well, unless you're just once again stalling since you have no evidence and are instead just wasting everyone's time as I suspect.

 

I think I'd remember if someone posted links to people's interviews of seeing the plane in the ground.

Post them again, please.

 

This is from Wally Miller, the coroner in charge of the scene and directly involved in the excavation as he had to be there for the remains.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsJ0EFezBW4"]Wally Miller gives official explanation how Flight 93 allegedly crashed - YouTube[/ame]

So he is a liar? He isn't FBI or NTSB. He doesn't even work for the federal government.

So let's see your evidence he is lying.

Go on.

We're waiting.

Or are you going to run away yet again?

 

What kind of cockamamie explanation is this?!?

"The explanation was, when the plane came in, it was coming low. It banked at a 90deg angle -- allegedly from the people, from the struggle in the cockpit.
The right wing hit the ground right there were the impact area is and as that happened, it took the front end...[does cartwheel hand gesture].
The front 1/3 of the plane, including the cockpit, slammed into the ground off of the wing and the front 1/3 broke off and flew up into the trees and there was a fireball behind it and the remaining 2/3'rds went down in the ground." - Wally Miller, interviewed by Dominick DiMaggio (Sept. 200

You guys don't really believe this nonsense, do you?!!

Well no, because you said people were interviewed who said they saw the plane in the ground. Mr. Miller was obviously just repeating what he was told by how he started the conversation: "The explanation was..." And whoever gave Miller that explanation was giving him a line of bull!

I want to see interview by people who you say "saw the plane" in the ground, NOT who were just told that supposedly happened.

 

Wow. A whole lot of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and excuses, but nothing of substance. Again, do I have to reiterate WALLY MILLER HAD TO BE IN THE HOLE? I guess so because you ignored that. Wally Miller was the coroner. He was in charge of any remains found, and that includes documenting where they were etc.

So again I ask you. Where is your evidence Wally Miller is lying?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54&feature=player_embedded"]9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol II : Wally Miller [preview] - YouTube[/ame]

Here is more of that interview. He has pictures of the scene. He talks about the crater, how deep it was, how they found remains in the crater.

You wanted an interview. You have an interview. No more excuses. Give us your evidence Wally Miller is lying.

 

The rest of it.

 

Yet you're the one who posted Killtown's bs analysis of Val Mcclatchey's photo as some form of rebuttal.

If only you applied the same standards to yourself that you apply to others.

At least the guy in Pat's vid was actually involved in the investigation. Killtown? Not so much. He did try and insert himself into the real world when he stalked Val though.

 

Here's the stats, Suede.

1. All of the plane crashed into the field in Shanksville. We know this because:

It was tracked to the location.
Witnesses saw it in the location.
Witnesses recovered pieces of it from the location.
The FDR and CVR confirms the tracking information.
No one has recovered pieces of the flight from some other location.
There's no other supporting evidence to confirm that it crashed or landed somewhere else.

2. Some of the plane was recovered from the field in Shanksville. We know this because:

Witnesses report recovering pieces of it from the location.
Photographs of some of those pieces were taken.

3. Some of the plane was recovered from below the soil. We know this because:

Witnesses report recovering the pieces from below the soil.
Photographs of some of this recovery were taken.

4. Some of the plane was recovered from above the ground. We know this because:

Witness report recovering the pieces from above the soil.
Photographs of some of this recovery were taken.

5. Passenger remains were recovered from the site. We know this because:

Witnesses report recovering passenger remains from the site.
Passenger remains were sent for analysis and positively identified.

These 5 points alone render your speculations moot. The exact percentage of the plane found below ground is not a leverage point with which you can destroy the credibility of witnesses who tracked the aircraft, witnesses who saw the aircraft, witnesses who recovered the aircraft, witnesses who investigated the scene, and witnesses who recovered and positively identified the remains of the victims.

Beyond that your speculation has no evidential foundation. You cannot found a claim on a "lack of evidence." You can only found a claim on existing evidence. There is no existing evidence to support the theory that witnesses are lying. There's no existing evidence to support the theory that evidence was planted on the scene. There's no existing evidence to support any of your attempts to destroy the credibility of what you call the official story.