It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
*rolls his eyes*
Wonder when "true believers" will realise skepticism is something we all have, just towards different things.
And stop making themselves look so silly with "This is why the stupid "skeptics" believe whatever!!!" crap that makes them look nothing more than silly. Though it most likely makes them feel great.




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
What I am trying to show here tezza is that it is not going to be possible for me to prove this to you, because you can rationalise it away using the claim that it is faith based.

Then you agree with the OP. You offer nothing in the way of proof and you rely on a faith based belief that the plane buried itself under the crater.


Originally posted by exponent
Take this thread for example, you have been pressing me constantly for equations to determine the penetration into dirt, wheras I have been unable to get you to even illustrate the barest essentials of any alternative theory.

You want me to propose an alternate theory to deflect your burden of proof to show that your theory is correct.

I'm not the one claiming that a plane buried itself under that crater. You are. You need to prove this. You claimed that large sections of fuselage were dug out of the crater. You need to prove this.

When your theory fails to sustain itself, it's not much of a theory - is it?

So far, the OP has been shown to be correct. Official government story believers have only resorted to showing a faith based belief that the alleged Flight UA93 allegedly buried itself under the crater.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



We don't really know that they didn't, the pictures we have were released as trial exhibits, they were likely a selection from a larger set. It wouldn't hurt to file a FOIA to find out if there are actually more.


Would you file a FOLA for us? I don’t have time because I have a life and a family to take care of, besides, I don’t want to end up on the no fly list. But, anything you can do we really would appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'm afraid not. I have little information to go off

But you continue to have faith that most of Flight laid buried under that shallow crater.


I don't see how my opinion of how much was buried affects the scene.

Well 95% was claimed to be recovered, so where was most of that before they started the cleanup?


I believe it was quoted as 40 feet, but I can look this up if there's any actual importance attached to it.

And you believe that?


So you don't actually know the dimensions at all. You're just guessing,

If the engine fits, who cares what the bucket dims are? If it fits, it fits.


and somehow thinking that guesses are more worthwhile than DNA evidence.

Who claims the DNA evidence again? The trustworthy FBI?


I don't think so, and this attitude is horrifying to me.

You know what attitude horrifies me? Those who chastise people of faith, but then rely of faith that most of Flight 93 buried.


AHA! So the fact there was someone in the hole is proof they were staged? Oh wait no again it's just more worthless speculation from someone who has an irreducible delusion.

Why do skeptics always have to insult when losing a debate?


It isn't much remains, but luckily using modern forensic techniques he can use these small remains to identify the body they are from. This was done, and obviously you can't think of any way to counter this so you just ignore it.

What would be easier to plant, a lot of human remains, or fewer? If you want to continue with the DNA evidence, please start a new thread about it. This one is about the CLAIM that Flight 93 was mostly buried.


I doubt you would accept it if a volunteer with provable credentials explained it to you. You want to believe that it's faked, and therefore you do believe it is faked, there is no logic you are using, just your own personal bias.

I don't need anyone to further explain the claim most of Flight 93 was buried. I KNOW that is the claim. I just want someone to PROVE is was buried. So far no one has come close to do that.


Note I didn't say most, because I cannot quantify the amount.

Well the officials story claims most, so there is a big problem if you disagree with that.


I believe a large amount of it was buried because there's nothing impossible about this

See, you are relying of faith. thanks for proving my thread correct.


and there were many people involved in the recovery of bits of Flight 93 from under the ground!

Link? Source? Interview?


Unless some actual evidence gets presented

I hear what you are saying. We are still waiting for some actual evidence that most of Flight 93 was buried.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Quite frankly, I m still looking for evidence of a plane that crashed there at all, let alone how much/what percentage was buried!!

No wreckage at the site , but small pieces of debris scattered about for 5 miles??Come on..

Sounds like a missile strike, based on the evidence thus far.....and certainly no plane divebombed into the ground vertically....that i am sure of....based on the evidence.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Im still waiting for you to tell me what kind of missile will down a plane and yet leave it intact until it hits the ground.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

posted by benoni
Quite frankly, I m still looking for evidence of a plane that crashed there at all, let alone how much/what percentage was buried!!

No wreckage at the site , but small pieces of debris scattered about for 5 miles??Come on..

Sounds like a missile strike, based on the evidence thus far.....and certainly no plane divebombed into the ground vertically....that i am sure of....based on the evidence.



No. The 9-11 Flight 93 OFFICIAL STORY is about as believable as this:




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
look swamp...

perhaps you havent been reading my comments...
let me spell it out to you again..

The plane was not, and could not have been intact when it "hit the floor"..

Why??

Because of the trail of debris spread over 5 miles....OK???and because there where no plane parts found at the alledged crash site...same as no bodies, no wings, no fuselage, no engines, no seats, no NOTHING!!

This is why Donald Rumsfeld and i concur that the plane was shot down by a missile..OK??Clear enough??

Good....



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

posted by benoni
look swamp...

perhaps you havent been reading my comments...
let me spell it out to you again..

The plane was not, and could not have been intact when it "hit the floor"..

Why??

Because of the trail of debris spread over 5 miles....OK???and because there where no plane parts found at the alledged crash site...same as no bodies, no wings, no fuselage, no engines, no seats, no NOTHING!!

This is why Donald Rumsfeld and i concur that the plane was shot down by a missile..OK??Clear enough??

Good....


Actually an 8 mile separation between the alleged Flight 93 debris fields.



There is also the possibility that the debris fields were seeded from the back of a C-130 to add confusion to the 9-11 psyops mission, or that the pilot screwed up and dumped the one debris field too far away. There has to be an explanation why the same C-130 was present at two alleged 9-11 crash sites (Flight 77 and Flight 93) which were separated by 110 miles flying distance and almost 20 minutes flying time. Shanksville is not on a direct line between the Naval Annex and the Gofer06 destination of Offutt AFB south of Omaha Nebraska; but about 60 miles off the flight path.

Some pseudoskeptics and government loyalists are claiming the nonsense that turbofan engines when hitting the ground at 500+ mph, at the alleged strip mine crash site, could spin the turbine parts two miles away to the 2nd debris field. They claim a 9-12 mph breeze can also blow light aircraft debris 8 miles away which is more nonsense.

But their FAITH in their government god is strong and there is no end to the nonsense they will invent to defend their extreme religious beliefs.


posted by pinch

The clearance listed on your screen shot for Sword 31 is as follows:


ADW AML J149 EMPTY J80 LMN SHACK OFF


which translated to the uninformed, is depart Andrews AFB (ADW), proceed to the fix known as ARMEL (AML), which is a vortac near Dulles, join jet route 149 (J149) fly on that route until you hit the fix named EMPTY (an intersection near Columbus, OH) join jet route 80 (J80) until you hit the waypoint TILMN in southern Indiana, then direct to SHACK, which is a fix on the Offutt, AFB (their destination) HI-ILS RWY 30 approach, then land at Offutt (OFF).
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 7/7/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I called the marina at the nearby lake after the incident. There were parts of the plane in the lake. Some think they might have blown there, but this defies logic.The plane was in parts before it hit the ground.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 



If the plane was in parts before it hit the ground, then tell me who made the planeshaped hole?


Quack
D.Duck



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The "hole" was made by the same people who shot the plane down....

The same people responsible for the WTC demolitions as well as the Pentagon missile attack(disguised as a plane of course...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Maybe the skeptics will show some evidence most of Flight 93 was buried by the 11th page of this thread. Don't know what's taking them so long?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


As usual tezza your post is filled with accusation and insinuation. You have failed to propose any reasonable theory, and rely on nothing more than speculation while ignoring the amount of evidence that is available.

I have explained to you in depth as to why I will never be able to prove this to you, and you have unknowingly confirmed this with your repetition. Until you are able to present evidence which actually favours an alternate theory (which you'll also have to figure out) then what is the point in debating any further? The evidence has been presented, it clearly favours a plane impact, and there is nothing more I can add.


Originally posted by ATH911
But you continue to have faith that most of Flight laid buried under that shallow crater.

My reply to you is the same as to tezzajw above, anyone can deny evidence is applicable through any number of rationalisations. I have even given examples of how your claims will change if photos or videos of this debris in-situ were found.

It is a simple matter to use this line of argumentation, but it does not actually favour any particular theory, what you are doing in fact is muddying the waters. By claiming evidence doesn't count, you reduce the amount of information a theory can be based off, and because your 'theory' is in fact just a general feeling that something could be wrong, having less evidence in your eyes is better than having more.

This is not the scientific method, and is in fact analogous to how Kent Hovind and similar evangelicals conduct their debates. I have said in the Thermite thread that I have no real interest in participating, and unless actual evidence is presented then no viable theory exists in your eyes.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


SPreston, this is really getting old and very much annoying. Its already been explained ad nauseum of what the "2nd debris" field consisted of. I have posted it, others have, and yet you still continue with this nonsense garbage that "ohhh, theres a second debris field this means shootdown! Suspicious!" No, enough with your innuendos, enough with your twisting of eyewitness accounts, enough of your lies. What you are doing now is just repeating the same BS over and over until you hope it magically becomes true, cause apparently you wholeheartedly believe that the more times you say it, it then it becomes true, no matter how bogus or wrong it is.

For the last time, the "second debris field" CONSISTED OF: LIGHT MATERIALS, (ie: PAPER, NYLONS, CLOTHS, MAGAZINES, INSULATION, SMALL SHARDS OF THE SKIN, HUMAN REMAINS)

Its been confirmed by eyewitnesses, first responders, recovery workers, investigators, people who lived or were very close to the crash site. Their accounts plus the reports have been posted before on other threads, YOU ignore them as usual as it does not fit YOUR make believe fantasy scenario. Yet you home-in on eyewitness accounts that, once properly twisted and out of context, you tout as proof of something sinister. Stop it. Enough of this nonsense SPreston. Its old, annoying, and it doesnt help your case any more. Just goes to show how desperate you are to find something that just isnt there.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
As usual tezza your post is filled with accusation and insinuation. You have failed to propose any reasonable theory, and rely on nothing more than speculation while ignoring the amount of evidence that is available.

trebor, you have been quoted stating that a large part of the plane was buried. You have been quoted stating that large fuselage sections were recovered, after being dug out.

Yet, you have not proved either claim.

I don't know what happened, so I don't need to propose an alternate theory. There is no requirement for me to pose an alternate theory.


Originally posted by exponent
I have explained to you in depth as to why I will never be able to prove this to you, and you have unknowingly confirmed this with your repetition.

Yes, I know that you've explained to a depth of 40 feet or so, from the bottom of your crater, trying to convince me that large parts of the plane were buried there.

It didn't work, did it? I can't believe that you would believe that claim - without any proof. Amazing.


Originally posted by exponent
Until you are able to present evidence which actually favours an alternate theory (which you'll also have to figure out) then what is the point in debating any further? The evidence has been presented, it clearly favours a plane impact, and there is nothing more I can add.

Again, exponent, I do not need to propose an alternate theory. I am completely justified in asking you to prove your theory that a large part of the plane was buried. You couldn't.

The evidence does not show that a large part of the plane was buried. You claimed that it did with your faith based belief, but you shy away from ever proving it.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston
 


For the last time, the "second debris field" CONSISTED OF: LIGHT MATERIALS, (ie: PAPER, NYLONS, CLOTHS, MAGAZINES, INSULATION, SMALL SHARDS OF THE SKIN, HUMAN REMAINS)



Oh wow. GenRadek believes a 9-12 mph breeze can blow an UnPopular Mechanics magazine 8 miles away from an alleged crash site where the alleged aircraft buried itself in the ground just like Wile E Coyote.

Maybe you need a long hiatus away from your cartoon science.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
GenRadek, do you believe most of Flight 93 was buried? Is so, please tell us why you believe that.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Wow, there are some gullible people around this site!!

2 cents.....

...which is a lot more than i would give the "official story.."if i had to put a dollar value to it!!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


And thats where you are operating under false assumptions.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join