Prove that bulk of UA93 buried itself into the ground

reply to post by hooper

---

I enjoy watching you put your foot further and further into your mouth.

That isn't a drainage ditch.

It's a slump. That happens to fill dirt. Like over a strip mine.

If you think that's a drainage ditch, then where exactly does it drain into? Nothing that I can see.

The water drains in that ditch. Duh.

Reread my question. This time with a little comprehension mixed in.

I didn't ask WHAT drained in the "ditch".

I asked where would that water go?

If it's a ditch, then it should drain into another larger ditch, or into a sediment pond. And if it was from erosion, it would also drain into a larger cut, or show where it spreads out slow enough to settle out sediment.

Your "ditch" goes nowhere.

Down in the ground. Dirt absorbs water. Duh.

If you are still having problems with ditch physics, feel free to start a new thread about it.

Back on topic.


Reheat?

What about Reheat? He/she said, the context of comparison of the impacts at the WTC and at Shanksville, that the bulk of the plane material buried into the ground. I guess unless he has a scrap by scrap 3D map of each piece, its final location, and its weight and ratio to the weight of the plane you are going to call him/her a disinfo agent / government loyalist / shill, huh?

You obviously think differently. OK. I would really loved to hear you prove ANYBODY is lying. Remember, to prove someone is lying you have to first prove what they did know and then prove that they are communicating something SIGNIFICANTLY different for the purpose of misdirection.

Go ahead.

He made the claim most of the plane buried, now he's cowarding out to prove it.

Imagine if a truther made a claim and wouldn't try to prove it. You skeptics would be all over that person too.

You must be a city kid, eh?

Yes, dirt absorbs water... when it's dry enough.

But if the dirt's dry, there wouldn't be any water in the ditch from rains, etc.

If the ditch has water,presumably from rain, then the dirt is also wet/saturated and can't absorb any more water, and so the water needs to drain somewhere.

This is such a simple concept to grasp, that it now is no wonder why you are unable to understand all the other things that happened on 9/11:

You simply have no life experience to help you understand.



[edit on 26-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Anything like you constantly claiming there is an official document that says how much of the plane is buried?

Stop lying hooper.

Are you know saying that you never stated numerous times that there was an "official claim" as to the percentage of the plane that was buried and then went on to challenge anyone to try and prove the "official claim"?

Jesus Christ, what is your claim? Is it I keep claiming there is an official document, or is it I keep claiming it's the official claim?!? Pick one!!!!!!!!!!!

Polite Mod Request

Hi People,

Just a polite reminder to:

- Keep it on-topic
- Keep it focussed on the POST rather than the POSTERS
- Keep it civil. Theres no need to throw in the sidejabs and backhanders at one another.

Yes it can become passionate discussion - but it should never become poisonous.


Cheers,
ALIEN

You tell me. If I told you something is official I would expect a written reference. Do you have one? Or lacking that maybe testimony. But as far as I can see you have nothing. Just drop the word official, that is all. Just say that it is something that you parsed together from media accounts by volunteers at the site, locals voicing their opinions or trying to describe what they had been told by others. Some of the plane became embedded or aggregated in the ejacta at the impact point, that is all. There is no official account as to ratios or percentages. You are basically claiming disbelief in a number you made up.

Why do you keep lying hooper? I told you the 80% number came from a rigorously trained Memorial Ambassador.

Now its 80%? You've said "most", "bulk", 80%, 90% and a dozen other descriptions. Are you now going to stick to what the Ambassador said? Truly, honestly? Because if you are then she said 80% was found "IN THE CRATER". Not under it, not buried, just in the crater.

Fail.

Um, yeah. I said that in page 1.


Do they all not describe essentially the same thing? Sheesh.

reply to post by ATH911

---

And what about the statement made by the rigoursly trained Ambassador wherein she stated that the material was found "IN THE CRATER"?

reply to post by hooper

---

What was that explanation your skeptic buddy GenRadek gave?