Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

Originally posted by eniac
But I'm as puzzled as anybody about the lack of obvious debris at the PA scene.

So... are there any people who were at the scene who dispute the fact that much of the debris 'burrowed' into the soft ground there?? Did anyone who was at the scene say there was very little debris there?

Most of the first witnesses to arrive didn't believe a plane crashed there and thought it may have crashed into the woods. No one commented that the plane burrowed because there was no hole in the ground, only a shallow crater.

If a plane burrowed in the ground, it would have left a large hole. No hole was left, therefore NOTHING burrowed underground.

Originally posted by ATH911
No, I have a problem with officials saying they essentially dug out 24 cars out of that ground, yet there is little evidence of this and the little evidence that has been show has also been shown how it could have easily been staged.

So because you think it could have been staged, it was staged?

What's disappointing is you skeptics can't even prove where the bulk of the plane was after it crashed!!! hahaha

How would you expect it to be proven? You've heard reports from the people who actually cleaned this stuff up, you've seen pictures of the operation, what more could realistically be provided?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911

 

Some 60 tons of aircraft pieces was recovered, enought to fill 10 large bins like this

Funny there is no debris with United Airlines colors on them! What was the nearest business to the crash site again?

Searchers spent WEEKS literally crawling over scene multiple times to recover all the pieces

Here can find reports of search efforts (too long to post)

This thread is about the alleged debris UNDERGROUND, not above ground where officially only 15% was. We are concerned with the unverifiable 80%.

Originally posted by exponent
So because you think it could have been staged, it was staged?

No, because it was SHOWN to be staged and coupled with that fact that no other evidence of the alleged 80% of debris underground has been produced.

How would you expect it to be proven? You've heard reports from the people who actually cleaned this stuff up,

All those reports are about the cleanup ABOVE ground. We are interested in the cleanup BELOW ground.

you've seen pictures of the operation, what more could realistically be provided?

An estimated equivalent of 24 cars was allegedly dug out of the ground. Most of the photos of the excavation shows them excavating just dirt. The only photos showing debris allegedly being dug out is an engine piece that was shown to be planted by the backhoe bucket and one un-burnt dirt-free black blox propped up on a piece of metal in a hole at an unverifiable location.

All of that evidence points to a staged event and no large plane in the ground.

All the evidence you skeptics have that a large plane is in the ground is based on faith.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911
No, because it was SHOWN to be staged and coupled with that fact that no other evidence of the alleged 80% of debris underground has been produced.

But if it was shown to be staged, then you have evidence of it being staged right?

All those reports are about the cleanup ABOVE ground. We are interested in the cleanup BELOW ground.

No I'm pretty sure they encompass the excavation as well.

All of that evidence points to a staged event and no large plane in the ground.

All the evidence you skeptics have that a large plane is in the ground is based on faith

All the evidence other than the eyewitness accounts, dna, personal effects, radar tracking, photographs then. What evidence actually proves staging though? Seems to me you're simply saying "The evidence is not good enough, therefore it was staged", but since when is this the default option?

You cannot simply fall back to the "we don't have enough evidence of it being real, so it was staged" option, without actual evidence to back up your theory. Are you telling me that eyewitness accounts, dna, personal effects, radar tracks, photographs of debris etc are not good enough to prove a plane did actually crash there, but you require absolutely no positive evidence to claim that it was all staged?

reply to post by ATH911


Playing games aren't we?

Searching area



Searchers digging for debris



Recovered flight recorders



Impact crater shot



Impact crater - note debris



Recovery of jet engine

That was one amazing plane. After hitting the ground parts of it bounced 10 miles away. I guess it was made of that superball material. It is sad that there is a memorial in the wrong spot. I wonder if anyone will ever admit to shooting it down.

Oh for Pete's sake!!!

Here:

ntsb.gov...

And here:

www.ntsb.gov...

Originally posted by exponent
But if it was shown to be staged, then you have evidence of it being staged right?

Yep.

No I'm pretty sure they encompass the excavation as well.

Oh you're pretty sure? Just like you are pretty sure 80% of Flight 93 was buried? Why don't you post some accounts of the rescue crew digging out the equivalent of 24 cars below that [s]hole[/s] crater?

All the evidence other than the eyewitness accounts, dna, personal effects, radar tracking, photographs then. What evidence actually proves staging though? Seems to me you're simply saying "The evidence is not good enough, therefore it was staged", but since when is this the default option?

You don't see a problem when the bulk of the evidence is MIA?

You cannot simply fall back to the "we don't have enough evidence of it being real, so it was staged" option, without actual evidence to back up your theory.

We've shown how the engine in the hole was planted and showed how obvious the black boxes where staged and that there is no proof the black boxes in the photos were taken at the scene.

Btw, are you ever going to show evidence of where most of the plane wreckage was after the alleged crash? We are impatiently awaiting...

"Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families"
Suitcases? I doubt it.

reply to post by ATH911


Actually, since the title of your thread has the word 'Skeptic' in it, would seem that you are ULTIMAtely more of the 'skeptic', in this instance.

YOU refuse to accept the facts

YOU make up "facts" (as in the post just above)

YOU use incredibly ridiculous hyperbole (24 cars!!! )

YOU are the one being the 'skeptic', with your disdain and ridicule.

Therefore, it is ULTIMAtely your job to prove YOUR point....

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by ATH911


In response to this uneducated comment:

Too bad we've shown that engine is dirt-free and small enough to fit in the bucket next to it. FAIL

UTIMA...I mean, ATH ( )

Here's a photo of a typical engine. Would do you well to learn.

This is a CFM 56, which is used extensively in the B737. The United B757 P/W is very similar, only slightly larger (not much)



AND, for entertainment and educational purposes (relative sizes of components, and whatnot:



Again, the CFM....but relative sizes for comparison...all modern Turbofans are similar.

I believe I'm beginning to see the logical disconnect some have, regarding the jet engines from UAL93. You see, with the impact forces involved, the engines did not stay in one piece. You can see the various components, the compressor section and turbine section...they are connected together only by concentric shafts...shafts certainly not designed to withstand great shearing forces. AND the engines are rotating at thousands of RPM....that's a lot of energy.
And the big fan blades? They are an aluminum alloy. Each mounts individually into the central hub, so if damaged in the field they can be removed and replaced, without replacing the entire engine. AND, yes, because they're aluminum, they are pretty light. One person can carry one easily.

[edit on 7/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
YOU refuse to accept the facts

Such as?

YOU make up "facts" (as in the post just above)

Such as?

YOU use incredibly ridiculous hyperbole (24 cars!!!

)

How many average 2004 U.S. cars do you think equals 80% of a 757?

YOU are the one being the 'skeptic', with your disdain and ridicule.

Well at least you admit you skeptics full of disdain and ridicule! lol

Therefore, it is ULTIMAtely your job to prove YOUR point....

Says who? You?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Almost 6 pages later, the skeptics have FAILED to prove most of Flight 93 was buried.

Their faith that it did must be strong. Fundamentalist Christians should be envious of how strong their faith is.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ATH911]

Civility, decorum, and on topic discussion...

Sans personal attacks will be the order of the day.

Mod Note: 9/11 Forum Is Now Under Close Staff Scrutiny– Please Review This Link.

Thank you.

99.999% of everything we think we know is "hearsay". Unless we actually witness something ourselves, we must rely on what other people tell us. We seriously don't even really know whether there ever was a Flight 93, or even whether that specific plane ever existed. Come to think of it, unless you were actually in New York at some point since they built the World Trade Center, you don't even know that the WTC ever existed. It's just hearsay. Maybe all those photos were faked, and everyone who says the WTC was there was lying to us.

There is something called the Bielefeld Conspiracy, in which it is said that the German town of Bielefeld doesn't exist. The logic goes, *you've* never been there, right? For most people, this is true. Do you know anyone from there? Probably not And you don't know anyone who's been there, either - again, true for most people. Therefore, there is no such place. The theory continues that, anyone who claims to have been there is lying - they've been "reached". Photos are all fakes. Etc, etc, etc.

Of course this is a satire on conspiracy theories, but it bears thinking about. The point is that you can claim "conspiracy" on almost anything in the world, and with circular logic such as used in the Bielefeld Conspiracy, "prove" that the conspiracy exists.

Of course so-called "skeptics" rely on "faith". So does every single person in the world. We are able to confirm only the most minute fraction of the information we're given. The rest we have to accept as more or less true, unless giving some compelling reason not to believe it.

Originally posted by ATH911
Yep.

So what is this evidence? All you present in this post is the idea that by looking at a picture of an engine, you've been able to identify somehow that it's not dirty enough, and that the flight recorders were "obviously staged".

Do you think this is sufficient evidence to contradict the accounts of people who actually worked the ground, picking out bits of metal and flesh? All you're doing here is speculating that it could be staged because you doubt the evidence is genuine. Show me the actual evidence it was staged, the accounts of people bringing materials in to the site instead of out, of irregularities between flight recorders, of inconsistencies in the FDR.

Without this, you are doing nothing but speculating away the hard work of over a thousand people and proclaiming whatever you don't like the sounds of, to be a lie.

Oh you're pretty sure? Just like you are pretty sure 80% of Flight 93 was buried? Why don't you post some accounts of the rescue crew digging out the equivalent of 24 cars below that [s]hole[/s] crater?

The accounts have been posted.

Btw, are you ever going to show evidence of where most of the plane wreckage was after the alleged crash? We are impatiently awaiting...

What evidence would you like? Be specific please.

Originally posted by exponent
All you present in this post is the idea that by looking at a picture of an engine, you've been able to identify somehow that it's not dirty enough

Not not dirty enough, not dirty at all! You do concede that the engine piece fits in the bucket next to it?

and that the flight recorders were "obviously staged".

Please post your best evidence of where they were recovered.

Do you think this is sufficient evidence to contradict the accounts of people who actually worked the ground, picking out bits of metal and flesh?

*Sigh* Those accounts are of the people picking up debris ABOVE ground. You do agree it would be easier to plant debris above ground versus below ground?

Without this, you are doing nothing but speculating away the hard work of over a thousand people and proclaiming whatever you don't like the sounds of, to be a lie.

I would never thought it would be sooooooo hard for skeptics to prove 80% of a 757 was buried!

The accounts have been posted.

Link?

What evidence would you like? Be specific please.

Anything you can that would make a rational person believe most of a big 757 buried itself underground.