I said "Something that obviously shows most of Flight 93 buried," not that any of it buried (supposedly), or that most of one of it's engines buried. Please pay attention.
Okay, yeah, different blogs. The one you link to hasn't been active for 2 years if the last post is an indication. Lots of blogs about this "Killtown" guy. Lot's of people don't like him. If he has a career of inventing bs that makes sense. Makes less sense why anyone would consider him a credible source for anything. Wonder if RWF is ever going to clarify the Op re 'controversies'...
I hope the skeptics will be able to post some evidence most of Flight 93 buried to debunk this 9/11 conspiracy theory that nothing was really buried in that Shanksville field before this thread gets to 10 pages. I was hoping they'd be able to do that before this thread got to 10 posts, but everyone has a handicap, I guess.
You said zero was buried the other day. That engine clearly shows that more than zero was buried. You were/are wrong.
Yeah, I don't consider an engine dumped in a hole by a digger as being "buried." Excuse my nitpicking.
You STILL have not answered two very simple questions. What evidence will you accept and do you believe anyone who claims Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville is a liar. Why can't you answer these? It would appear you are hiding something.
And your evidence of the engine being "dumped" in a hole is what again? Please try not to use opinion. Mod edit: Do not discuss other posters.
Still no evidence most of 93 buried. How sad. Looks like the claim that most of the plane buried is .
Seems to be habit with some of the truther crowd: using retarded sources. What's more bizarre is trying to report critiques of those retarded sources to the mods. Criticizing retarded sources is fair game; either get over it or use better sources.
No, it looks like you're not here for evidence. You've got your mind already made up and no evidence will get past your blinders. It is also obvious you don't believe flight 93 crashed there. Correct me if I am wrong and on which points.
This one. It is an argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Hope that helps.
You mean how you skeptics ask us to prove nothing buried, even though you never proved the original claim that most of a 757 was buried?
I have been trying to determine what evidence would satisfy you. You refuse to say what would satisfy you. Play your childish games. Anyone who had any doubts what you are here for should know the truth by now.
We have. We've proven it to a level any normal person would accept. You haven't been able to refute the evidence. All you do is sit around and whine nobody has any evidence. Think anyone is buying it? I doubt it. Especially when you start buying in to killtown's retarded opinions about engines being lowered into the hole by a backhoe. He couldn't defend those claims before. You sure can't do any better.
Well, a plane crashed there and it was soft dirt. As I recall the angle of impact was fairly steep. They excavated and recovered plane parts as the pictures you linked to represent. So the evidence suggests that SOME of the plane did indeed bury. Whether anyone can prove it was less than 49% or more than 51% really doesn't matter.
Still no evidence to back up your assertion that Zero percent of United 93 was buried? There is documented photographic evidence proving you wrong. Are you lying or just incorrect?
It would help suede's case if he could find any source to back up his claims that has nothing to do with "Killtown" or anyone connected to "Killtown" or a fan of "Killtown". The fact that suede can't should be a clue he's on the wrong track...
It wasn't? Not sure that he does; from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 That sounds like what wasn't dug up at the main impact area was scattered around, and therefore can't be "dug up".
Give me an example of what you are talking about. Asking for your BEST evidence that most of 93 buried is playing childish games? Weird. I must of been absent that day. Can you re-post this evidence?
How "steep" was this angle? How many photos shows debris being extracted? At best. Too bad that is still FAR from what the official story claims. So if the FBI says, let's say, about 80% was buried, but only 1% did, that "doesn't matter"? ("Hypothetically," of course.)
Here's excellent evidence that most of a 757 didn't bury in the ground in Shanksville: "Why no piles of plane debris, just piles of dirt?" http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-no-piles-of-plane-debris-just-piles.html OFFICIAL STORY
