Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:25 PM by hooper
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to
post by titorite



Someone challenged, up above, to prove UAL 93 crashed at Shanksville.

No, it's Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground.

Maybe you can be the first skeptic to prove this extraordinary official claim.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by ATH911]


First prove that an official of the US government made that specific claim in an official capacity or admit that your trying to tilt at strawmen.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:48 PM by ATH911
reply to post by hooper


Well every time you skeptics want to know if truther think some official or 9/11 witness is wrong, you ask us if they are lying.

So is skeptic Reheat wrong then?


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 06:27 AM by hooper
Originally posted by ATH911
reply to
post by hooper


Well every time you skeptics want to know if truther think some official or 9/11 witness is wrong, you ask us if they are lying.

So is skeptic Reheat wrong then?


Like I said before, I don't know. Unlike you I do not claim to have any definitive information regarding percentages or ratios of the plane debris and its final status. When will you finally admit that, contrary to your many posts, there is no official claims in this regard?


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 12:16 AM by ATH911
reply to post by hooper


OK, then do you think Reheat is wrong that most of 93 was buried?


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 12:19 AM by ATH911
reply to post by hooper


You do agree that if a 757 buried in Shanks that the amount of dirt ejected out of the ground would be more than it would take to fill back up that shallow crater, right?


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:51 AM by hooper
Originally posted by ATH911
reply to
post by hooper


You do agree that if a 757 buried in Shanks that the amount of dirt ejected out of the ground would be more than it would take to fill back up that shallow crater, right?



Huh? I really don't follow you. Where are you going with this? It has been proven that NO official of any government ever made any claim as to ratios or percentages of the plane debris that was EMBEDDED or scattered or ejected or consumed. Yet you are still dying to call people liars even though they never said anything. Why don't you just spell out what you think?

Is this close: "I looked at the photos and I don't think the crater is large enough and I don't see enough remains of the airplane so I am assuming that the crash scene was artificated, based on my analysis of the photos I have found on the internet".


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:52 PM by ATH911
hooper, I actually feel sorry for you. You just got served.



"Because where [Flight 93] hit the ground, IT LITERALLY WENT INTO THE GROUND! They had to excavate and try and recover what they could and this top picture shows the excavation that they did. They excavated down about 40-45ft and the last pieces were recovered at about 30-35ft."


[edit on 23-10-2009 by ATH911]


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 10:34 PM by ATH911
reply to post by TeslaandLyne


The wing scars were a drainage ditch similar to the one seen in that 1994 aerial photo. You can tell because the surface of the dirt is still sun-dried.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:51 AM by hooper
reply to post by ATH911



I played it over and over and at no time did the volunteer at the memorial site say that he was an official of the US government and that 80% of the plane was buried. Give it up. There is no such claim. I know how badly you want there to be one so that you can act all outraged, but it didn't happen. Rational people understand this. Find some other straw to grasp onto, this one has slipped away.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 10:26 AM by TeslaandLyne
Originally posted by ATH911
reply to
post by TeslaandLyne


The wing scars were a drainage ditch similar to the one seen in that 1994 aerial photo. You can tell because the surface of the dirt is still sun-dried.


Created in advance.
There might be such a thing.

A high altitude crash looks the same as known from Scotland.
Was Scotland a test of what a high altitude crash looks like.
Quit possible to the renegade Illuminati think tankers.
Something perhaps not planned but evidence of opportunity.

I give you the occulted science of Tesla as being quite possible
of carving out a trench quicker than a crew of workers.
Beam technology very capable of physical forces and electrical jamming.

The crash site was not as big as in Scotland and have no idea the
plane size to crash trench dynamics.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags