I suspect you may be playing a disingenuous game here my fellow ATSer with numbers for a suffix...

Re. the video by Preston...

Dont you think its a little damning to your "official" word??

Afterall, you cant beat journalists who are unaware they shouldnt be telling us all the things which you now try to debunk??


Why has the footage never been seen again on TV??Not suspicious to you??

Then again, theres lots of footage from 9/11 that we only ever saw once on TV...lots.

If the photographer could see the gash in the ground, people walking around etc,no debris visible, no fires, no smoke, just dirt, ash and no, repeat NO plane, are you suggesting that all the so-called large pieces were found out of view, conveniently in the woods, hidden under big rocks or defying the Laws of Physics in other ways??

Like 5 miles away??

Why would it be that the supposed plane parts foundwere nowhere near the impact sight at all....??

Convenient ??Or BS??

Can you really say that all these freakish happenings on 9/11, ALL of which have never happened before, and will never happen again , guaranteed, make logical sense..??

this thread is entertaining in its stupidity

however it kept my attention all the way to the end

sort of like abbot and costellos 'whos on first' thing....

aaahhhhh.......for those in the mental health field

the cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias shown here is dazzling...

it really should be used as an example for a textbook.....

Surely you wouldn't have debris spread over a 5 mile radius unless the plane was already falling apart before it hit the ground, and surely that wouldn't happen unless it was shot down?

I suspect it was hit by a missile & bits of debris fell along it's flight path before the bulk of the aircraft crashed into the ground.

I don't see any other way to explain debris at other places outside the crash site.

PS - I'd wager that this also has never happened before, like steel towers collapsing from a fire, unless the plane has exploded in mid air, like at lockerbie.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Power_Semi]

Nine pages later and skeptics are still relying on FAITH that most of Flight 93 buried itself.

Skeptics, please post ANY evidence at this point that most of the plane buried itself for Pete's sake!

I do not deny the existance of the plane whacker....

I, and clearly others, have issues with the vertical crash and subsequent 5 mile radius of debris which is inconsistent with a vertical crash.....no debris at crash site...lots of small debris across 5 miles....come on!!

Plane?? Sure...!!

5 mile radius of small telephone book sized plane pieces...?? Ludicrous in the extreme.

Originally posted by ATH911
Nine pages later and skeptics are still relying on FAITH that most of Flight 93 buried itself.

Skeptics, please post ANY evidence at this point that most of the plane buried itself for Pete's sake!

exactly no proof just mindless arguments.. either there realy are paid disinfo agents here or the people defending the offical story have drunk waaaaay too much fluoride

Originally posted by cranberrydork
this thread is entertaining in its stupidity

however it kept my attention all the way to the end

sort of like abbot and costellos 'whos on first' thing....

aaahhhhh.......for those in the mental health field

the cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias shown here is dazzling...

it really should be used as an example for a textbook.....

Cranberrydork these kinds of juvenile statements have no business on ATS. This is a family friendly adult orientated website not a middle school play ground. If you disagree with the OP please state what you disagree with and why in a polite manner.

I would also encourage you to click on the link in my sig. that offers a flag to new member if they read the post in the link. It explains the some of the rules of ATS.

It's been a while since I have replied as I have been busy, but I see that most of these discussions have degenerated into ridiculous back and forth. I will try and answer any questions put to me:

Originally posted by tezzajw
Could you quantify the approximate percentage of the plane that you think was buried?

I'm afraid not. I have little information to go off and I don't see how my opinion of how much was buried affects the scene.

Was it buried intact or in pieces?

As above

Which major components of the plane do you think were buried?

Well here at least we know that most of the more dense components seem to have been buried, at least one of the engines, probably the main wing strut etc, but I still don't see why it is relevant.

Could you describe the forces involved with some calculations, to show how a large amount of the plane was buried?

What calculations would you like? The best I can think you should look up is the equation for pressure.

Can you describe the physical process where the displaced dirt, from the large amount of the impacting plane, managed to settle back into the crater and cover all of the pieces?

Here I am totally confused, the "physical process"? It is not as if the plane somehow warped through soil. It displaces it, and the soil will both be thrown around, and be deposited. It may be deposited in heaps which then collapse back into the hole, but who knows for sure. I certainly wasn't there to see it.

To what depth did 'they' dig to recover all of the pieces?

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

Originally posted by ATH911
Wide enough to fit that engine part into it. Anyone with working vision can tell that.

So you don't actually know the dimensions at all. You're just guessing, and somehow thinking that guesses are more worthwhile than DNA evidence. I don't think so, and this attitude is horrifying to me.

First you should prove the actually came out of the ground in Shanksville. Evidence they're staged? Why did they have someone jump in the hole to photograph it thereby stepping on the remains of some of the alleged 40 passengers? Seems kind of insensitive and unnecessary to do that unless they REALLY wanted to make people believe a black box buried there.

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.

Wally Miller said he only found the amount of remains to fill up only 3 caskets. That's not very much remains.

Now you tell me why he reported not a single drop of blood if 44 people were essentially shredded during the crash?

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.

Why did he find no blood? Because blood is a liquid, not a solid, and in a crash where bodies are ripped up into miniscule pieces and subjected to a large fuel explosion, I would not expect to find much of it left.

Well prove most of the plane buried! We've only been waiting for 6 pages now.

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.

Why do you believe most of Flight 93 was buried?

Note I didn't say most, because I cannot quantify the amount. I believe a large amount of it was buried because there's nothing impossible about this, and there were many people involved in the recovery of bits of Flight 93 from under the ground!

Originally posted by Bachfin
The FACT that 911 was an inside job aren't opinions to be debated... they are facts to be delt with...

This is typical of the truth movement. Claim that something is already proven so doesn't need debate. It makes me sad to see such a dogmatic belief in something with so little proof, and in fact in this case no evidence whatsoever to support them.

The rest of this thread degenerates in the same way. People with an agenda seek to force me, Swampfox etc to somehow disprove a theory they have concocted based on no evidence whatsoever.

The evidence they present, that of biased scepticism and pure guesswork, is supposedly able to refute the eyewitness accounts of ultimately over a thousand people. The recovered data log from the plane's black box, the recovered voice log from its CVR. The data recorded by local radar stations, the DNA recovered during the search etc.

It is a waste of time trying to debate with these people, because they are offensive and aggressive. They intersperse their ludicrous requests for evidence with claims of treason and threats of execution.

It is truly a sad situation when people feel they can pick a theory, and if they shout down all opposition for long enough their theory is automatically fact.

Unless some actual evidence gets presented, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Something just smells bad on this.

Originally posted by exponent
I will try and answer any questions put to me:

I'm afraid not. I have little information to go off and I don't see how my opinion of how much was buried affects the scene.

As above

Well here at least we know that most of the more dense components seem to have been buried, at least one of the engines, probably the main wing strut etc, but I still don't see why it is relevant.

exponent, you stated that you were going to answer questions, but all you did was avoid them.

You haven't managed to clarify any of your belief about the plane being buried. Ask yourself why you don't have those answers. Why has the official story sold you short, where you can only resort to guessing about what might have been found?

Originally posted by exponent
What calculations would you like? The best I can think you should look up is the equation for pressure.

Show me the calculations where the plane can crash and displace the dirt, only to have the dirt rebury the plane. Use whatever calculations or modelling techniques that you think should apply, to show how the plane can be buried.

Originally posted by exponent
Here I am totally confused, the "physical process"? It is not as if the plane somehow warped through soil. It displaces it, and the soil will both be thrown around, and be deposited. It may be deposited in heaps which then collapse back into the hole, but who knows for sure. I certainly wasn't there to see it.

What do you mean by 'who knows for sure'? You're the one believing that this is what the plane did. You buy into the government story that the plane was partly buried, displacing the soil, at least to a depth of 40 feet. If you claim this happened, then you should be able to mathematically model it.

I find it strange that you have few facts and that you're at a loss to mathematically explain how the plane can bury itself. Yet, you believe it happened. As the OP claims, you do appear to rely on faith that the alleged Flight 93 buried itself.

Don't you feel as though the government should have at least owed you a report, similar to the NIST reports, about the alleged Flight 93 crash?

Originally posted by tezzajw
exponent, you stated that you were going to answer questions, but all you did was avoid them.

Perhaps you don't understand the answers, when I say that I cannot give solid facts because the information does exist, this doesn't mean I actually believe in some solid numbers and am not telling you them. It means what it says, the information is not available, and therefore any opinion I have on the matter would be based on speculation.

Show me the calculations where the plane can crash and displace the dirt, only to have the dirt rebury the plane. Use whatever calculations or modelling techniques that you think should apply, to show how the plane can be buried.

Either you're trying to present this as a challenge too excessive to be met by anyone, or you're proposing it because you are woefully ignorant of the scientific method. Regardless, here is your answer:
F=ma

It may be glib, but it's about the best you are likely to get. The plane impacted the ground with a certain amount of momentum, a large amount of its mass then slowed to a stop in an extremely short time period. I don't have the information on the axial strength capacity of an airframe, nobody does, because nobody designs a plane to withstand a 500mph head on crash.

But why should it matter? Can we prove that Flight 93 would leave this shape crater by modelling it and developing algorithms to describe its behaviour? No. Can we determine that Flight 93 did cause this crater by examining the evidence surrounding the event? Yes.

I would like to highlight this part of your post as being especially puzzling:

I find it strange that you have few facts and that you're at a loss to mathematically explain how the plane can bury itself. Yet, you believe it happened. As the OP claims, you do appear to rely on faith that the alleged Flight 93 buried itself.

Don't you feel as though the government should have at least owed you a report, similar to the NIST reports, about the alleged Flight 93 crash?

Why would anyone require a complex mathematical model of a plane crashing, to know a plane crashed? We don't need a NIST report about Flight 93 precisely because no plane is ever going to survive a 500mph collision. You'll notice that nowhere in the NIST report do they discuss making the impact of UA175 or AA11 survivable.

What a bizarre world you must live in. I can only imagine how you would investigate other scenarios. Perhaps a car crash requires recreation and simulation to determine whether the pedestrian was actually struck. Even if the competing hypothesis is whether the government secretly killed them, and the car was never there in the first place. despite you finding its number plate and VIN on scene, and the only evidence for the alternate theory being that you don't think the damage they suffered was indicative of a car, even though experts in car crashes tell you it is.

I apologise for my bad English today, it has been a long weekend

Originally posted by exponent
Note I didn't say most, because I cannot quantify the amount. I believe a large amount of it was buried because there's nothing impossible about this,

Originally posted by exponent
when I say that I cannot give solid facts because the information does exist, this doesn't mean I actually believe in some solid numbers and am not telling you them. It means what it says, the information is not available, and therefore any opinion I have on the matter would be based on speculation.

How can you reconcile both of these quotes to make sense?

You believe that a large part of the plane buried itself, but you admit that you have absolutely no facts to support it.

Just as the OP claims, you present a faith based belief.

Originally posted by exponent
Regardless, here is your answer:
F=ma
It may be glib, but it's about the best you are likely to get.

So you admit that you can not show any specific calculations that prove 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater.

I expected better of you, exponent. I know that you're a numbers man and I was hoping to see you produce some equations to show how you believe that 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 buried itself in the crater to a depth of 40 feet.

In other threads you mention how some people have confirmation bias. In this thread you have shown your own confirmation bias, by believing that 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 buried itself in the crater. You admit that your belief lacks facts and you refuse to show a single calculation to support your belief.

Confirmation bias, huh? Sure...

[edit on 5-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
How can you reconcile both of these quotes to make sense?

You believe that a large part of the plane buried itself, but you admit that you have absolutely no facts to support it.

No I don't, I believe that a large part of the plane was buried as there are pictures of fuselage sections, an engine etc which were extracted from the ground. The flight recorders, situated in the back of the plane, were located in the ground.

This is not nothing, this is evidence which suggests that a large amount of the plane was embedded in the ground. I don't know if it was most, whether it was 20, 40, 60 or 80% of the mass, but I don't think it matters.

Just as the OP claims, you present a faith based belief.

As already explained in this thread, at some point everyone has to go on faith. I believe on faith that eyewitnesses are being honest. This is not a remarkable fact and despite your bizarre view on the subject, many people understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

So you admit that you can not show any specific calculations that prove 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 was buried in the crater.

Indeed I do, I admit it freely, because it should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our conclusion.

I expected better of you, exponent. I know that you're a numbers man and I was hoping to see you produce some equations to show how you believe that 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 buried itself in the crater to a depth of 40 feet.

Perhaps you could tell me the axial strength of the plane, and then I'll get right on figuring out how much force it could apply.

In other threads you mention how some people have confirmation bias. In this thread you have shown your own confirmation bias, by believing that 'a large part' of the alleged Flight 93 buried itself in the crater. You admit that your belief lacks facts and you refuse to show a single calculation to support your belief.

Confirmation bias, huh? Sure...

I don't think you know what confirmation bias means. If I were showing it, I would be accepting some evidence, while dismissing other evidence, based purely on my own beliefs. Could you show me what evidence I am ignoring here? The claims in this thread have been based on a claimed lack of evidence.

Originally posted by exponent
No I don't, I believe that a large part of the plane was buried as there are pictures of fuselage sections, an engine etc which were extracted from the ground.

Which pictures show 'large fuselage sections' that were extracted from the ground? The picture of the engine does not show it being dug from the ground. That picture shows an engine on the ground.

Again, you are showing your faith based belief that what you have been told and shown, is true. You have no evidence that any of these items were dug from the ground, yet you believe it to be true.

Originally posted by exponent
The flight recorders, situated in the back of the plane, were located in the ground.

The flight recorders have never been identified by serial numbers. You are using a faith based belief when you accept that those were the flight recorders for the alleged Flight UA93.

Originally posted by exponent
This is not nothing, this is evidence which suggests that a large amount of the plane was embedded in the ground. I don't know if it was most, whether it was 20, 40, 60 or 80% of the mass, but I don't think it matters.

Of course it matters. Physics matters. If you wish to claim that items from the rear of the plane were found 25 feet under the ground, then you should be able to show, with physics, what happened to the front of the plane. Was it also buried? Where is the inventory of 'large parts' of the plane that were dug from the crater? You've claimed that some large fuselage sections were dug out - how many? What percentage of the plane does the dug-out mass constitute?

By avoiding to numerically approximate the 'large part' of the plane that was dug from the crater, you are showing a faith based belief that there was a 'large part' dug out.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Again, you are showing your faith based belief that what you have been told and shown, is true. You have no evidence that any of these items were dug from the ground, yet you believe it to be true.

Yes, this much is true, but you are arguing yourself into a corner here. Neither of us investigated the scene, neither of us were involved in the investigation, and so eventually you are going to have to take everything on faith.

Even if the pictures were available of these parts being dug out, you would have no requirement to believe them, you could simply claim that in fact it's still faith based because no eyewitness corroborates specifically the parts being dug out.

In reality however, we have to ask how bad a plan someone must have come up with to fake a plane crash and then not even have the parts buried where they say they are, even though people are going to converge on the area and work there for weeks.

Of course it matters. Physics matters. If you wish to claim that items from the rear of the plane were found 25 feet under the ground, then you should be able to show, with physics, what happened to the front of the plane. Was it also buried? Where is the inventory of 'large parts' of the plane that were dug from the crater? You've claimed that some large fuselage sections were dug out - how many? What percentage of the plane does the dug-out mass constitute?

These are all interesting questions, but they are not a requirement to believe one story over another, because you could again easily claim they were faked. Ultimately you have to rely on faith in the end, because you just can't verify everything personally.

By avoiding to numerically approximate the 'large part' of the plane that was dug from the crater, you are showing a faith based belief that there was a 'large part' dug out.

And I am afraid that you are using an argument that should have occured to everyone when thinking through something. You need to take the logic you're applying now, and extend it.

Seriously, what possible theory would account for this in your eyes? Lets say for a second the plane parts are faked. WHY? They must have prepared this site in advance, but then why would they not bother to simply crash Flight 93 into it? How did they land the plane, kill the passengers, literally rip them apart and transport them to the scene without there being a single report to indicate this? How did they ensure the passengers would attempt to storm the cockpit and explain so in phone calls to their family?

Can you answer any of these? I very much doubt it. I dismiss alternate theories because they are ludicrous. You require me to explain the precise details of flight 93's impact, I require you to simply explain the very basic ideas of your theory.

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, this much is true, but you are arguing yourself into a corner here. Neither of us investigated the scene, neither of us were involved in the investigation, and so eventually you are going to have to take everything on faith.

True, neither of us were there. Yet one of us - you - is arguing that a large part of the plane was buried under a crater. I'm not claiming that. In fact, I'm not claiming anything. I don't know, I wasn't there.

Originally posted by exponent
Even if the pictures were available of these parts being dug out, you would have no requirement to believe them, you could simply claim that in fact it's still faith based because no eyewitness corroborates specifically the parts being dug out.

I take it that this is your admission that you can't prove the fuselage sections and engine were dug out from the crater?

Originally posted by exponent
These are all interesting questions, but they are not a requirement to believe one story over another,

The physical questions are very interesting. You have not supplied one calculation to show how a large part of a plane can bury itself. I've not yet seen anyone show, using equations, how a large part of a plane can bury itself.

Originally posted by exponent
Lets say for a second the plane parts are faked.

Your deflection is noted. I never stated that the crash site was faked, or not. I don't know what happened at Shanksville, that's why I ask questions. The only person who seems to know what happened at Shanksville is Rumsfeld. He said that the plane was shot down. I can't confirm or deny this, despite him saying it.

No one has been able to prove to me how that plane was able to bury a large part of itself in that crater.

I've pointed out where you rely on your faith based belief that a large part of the plane buried itself, using your own words.

You claimed that there were images of large fuselage sections that were dug out, then failed to support this when I challenged you to prove it. You claimed that an image of an engine showed that it was dug out, but you backed down and failed to prove it.

Originally posted by impressme
I mean the FBI had to walk through the plane and while they where down there, why didn’t they take any pictures?

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.

Originally posted by tezzajw
True, neither of us were there. Yet one of us - you - is arguing that a large part of the plane was buried under a crater. I'm not claiming that. In fact, I'm not claiming anything. I don't know, I wasn't there.

Yes, I am claiming it based off the only evidence either of us have, the pictures and accounts of people there.

I take it that this is your admission that you can't prove the fuselage sections and engine were dug out from the crater?
...
No one has been able to prove to me how that plane was able to bury a large part of itself in that crater.
...
You claimed that an image of an engine showed that it was dug out, but you backed down and failed to prove it.

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.

While most of us recognise that evidence is not faith, you seem to fail to understand that you will never be able to ultimately verify everything, and therefore at some level will always have to rely on things we cannot verify.

I cannot know for sure whether they actually dug these parts up, but there is no evidence to suggest they didn't, and there is no coherent plan featuring them faking it, so there is no reason to believe it. Whether you accept this or not, you seem to be arguing that we should return to a position of not knowing and investigate further.

Eventually though, a line must be drawn, we must be able to say 'ok there is now X amount of evidence for this side and still none for the other side'. I don't think there is a line like this for you, which is why I would never be able to prove this to you.

I accept the 'official story' regarding 911, because there is a gigantic amount of evidence for one side, and barely more than speculation on the other. 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.

If the evidence was really not on my side, if there was some evidence which in fact did not fit, would you not at least be able to hypothesise? As it is I have no desire to continue this pointless back and forth.

The simple facts are that you don't trust pictures provided by the government and admitted in court, but you have no alternative theory which even comes close to explaining the facts as we have them, and you have no evidence with which to support any alternative theory.