Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Skeptics would have you believe that a Boeing 757 crashed here and about 95% of the plane was recovered.



The reason hardly any of the plane looks to be left in the above photo taken before the clean up is because most of Flight 93 managed to bury itself under the crater it supposedly left.



The ambassadors at the Flight 93 memorial, who recite the official story, are telling visitors that about 80% of Flight 93 was in the ground.

But when asked to prove this extraordinary claim that most of Flight 93 was buried, skeptics seem to have to rely on faith that this claim is true, because they can't seem to produce any extraordinary evidence to prove this.

The definition of faith is:


faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion

education.yahoo.com...


This is extremely funny (and ironic) since most skeptics tend to poo-poo religion!


The amount of 80% of a Boeing 757 being buried is hard to fathom. Let's do some math to try to try to visualize how much of Flight 93 supposedly was dug out of the ground.


Empty Boeing 757 = about 60 tons
80% = 48 tons
48 tons = about 24 American cars (based on average weight in 2004)


That would mean that the recovery crew at Shanksville essentially pulled out an astounding 24 cars beneath that crater and for some reason, those "smart" skeptics can't prove this, but only rely of FAITH that this is what happened.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Personaly i think the whole 911 issue is getting alil old.
S&F tho purely cus i agree with what your saying.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Hey, when you don't have proof, why not use faith?

Billions believe a plagarized book about an imaginary savior, so why wouldn't faith work for 911?

After all, it's not like the rest of that day was "out of the ordinary", it's not like there were other extraordinary coincidences and it's also not like there was other things that happened that day that have never happened before or since.

- Steel structures failing in 1 hour of fire, faith.
- People who had never flown commercial airliners, commandeering them and hitting precise targets. Faith.
- Norad standing down at the right time, faith.
- Pentagon 'hijacker' doing over 180 degree turn so that he could hit the perfect spot on the pentagon. Faith.
- Not near enough wreckage or damage at the pentagon to be a 757, faith.
- Numerous videos of what hit the pentagon disappear, lets throw a little faith on that.
- WTC7 magically falling into it's pad, even though no plane hit it... faith.


Faith is great on a day like 911.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Its not faith. Its called reading what the people who picked up the mess said they found.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics would have you believe that a Boeing 757 crashed here and about 95% of the plane was recovered.



The reason hardly any of the plane looks to be left in the above photo taken before the clean up is because most of Flight 93 managed to bury itself under the crater it supposedly left.





Personally, I think it is up to we who lived in the time of 9.11, to keep the subject current. Beyond that... and tell me if I am wrong, wasn't there some older satellite imagery that showed the crash crater as existing years before 9.11?

...



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Its not faith. Its called reading what the people who picked up the mess said they found.

So you rely on hearsay?

But it sounds like what you are talking about is the people who picked up debris above ground. How many talked about digging 48 tons of plane out of the ground?

Come on Swamp, why can't you guys proves that essentially 24 cars were pulled out of the ground under that crater? How hard can that be?!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Ahh, but no 93 thread would be complete without a reference to this video.


hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com...

You don't have a debris field some 4 miles from a crash site with 5% of a plane...

So which is it, the ground was either so soft that it absorbed the plane, or no plane crashed there and it was shot down, causing the huge debris field seen here in this rare footage that the media doesn't want you to see:



And what about the engine they supposedly pulled from Indian Lake?

Oh, you didn't know? Engines have self-guiding, on board tunneling capabilities that allow them to find their ways through pentagon buildings and underground to lakes. Amazing all this new technology isn't it?


Go ahead, show me the buried engine pic, and I'll show you video 2 above. Go ahead, show me video 2 above, and I'll show you the buried engine pic.

The bottom line is we need a new investigation. Too many loose ends. And loose planes.

[edit on Tue Jun 30th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

And what about the engine they supposedly pulled from Indian Lake?



A portion of the main fan from the port engine was recovered from the pond at the top of this photo;



Not from Indian Lake.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So I rely on hearsay.......

Hearsay, would be "Jim Bob tole me that Joe Bob saw somthun" An interview with someone who was there is not hearsay.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
A portion of the main fan from the port engine was recovered from the pond at the top of this photo

Allegedly. We have to take people's word for it since there is no photographic evidence of this fan piece which is weird because it was reported as the heaviest piece that survived and the story of this mystery engine changed so much over time.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


The only story that has changed about that engine...is the one that floats around truther sites.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


So I rely on hearsay.......

Hearsay, would be "Jim Bob tole me that Joe Bob saw somthun" An interview with someone who was there is not hearsay.

Are you going to post the interviews of workers who pulled out the my estimate of 48 tons of plane wreckage out of the ground? Or do we have to rely of faith that most of Flight 93 was buried underground?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


The only story that has changed about that engine...is the one that floats around truther sites.

What about the story a whole engine was found in the woods in which they had to tow it out using a winch? Did truthers make that one up?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


If you are looking for some sort of document in which someone weighed each piece of wreckage that came out of the crater to see if it matches up to your estimate, you arent going to find one.

Spending the time to do that, would be a waste of time and would serve no purpose.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, the fact that part of one of the engines ended up a few hundred feet from the crater is just that, a fact. And that fact hasnt changed.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Swampfox, do you believe most of Flight 93 buried itself underground after it allegedly crash as the official story states? Yes or no?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, the fact that part of one of the engines ended up a few hundred feet from the crater is just that, a fact. And that fact hasnt changed.

It had changed. I'll start a thread on this since this is off-topic.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I believe a large section of it ended up in that crater when it crashed. Whether it was 40...50...or 60 percent of the wreckage (or more) I do not know, I wasnt there to dig it out. I have to rely on the reports from the people that were.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


No, the fact hasnt changed....now, the media not getting the fact straight...that is entirely possible. There were many, many blown calls made by the media that day and in the days that followed.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I believe a large section of it ended up in that crater when it crashed. Whether it was 40...50...or 60 percent of the wreckage (or more) I do not know, I wasnt there to dig it out. I have to rely on the reports from the people that were.

Which reports would those be, Swampfox?

Do you mean official government reports, or plain old hearsay reports?





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join