Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times
Topic started on 30-6-2009 @ 06:26 PM 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.



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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 07:22 PM by redoubt
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?

...


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 07:55 PM by TrueAmerican
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]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 08:59 PM 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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:15 PM 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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:19 PM by ATH911
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?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:20 PM by ATH911
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?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:23 PM by Swampfox46_1999
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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:23 PM 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.



reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:31 PM by ATH911
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?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:34 PM by ATH911
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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:38 PM by Swampfox46_1999
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.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 09:39 PM by Swampfox46_1999
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 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