Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

reply to post by hooper

So the explanation the FBI gave Wally Miller about most of the plane burying is "wrong"?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Literally went into the ground. Where else was it suppose to go? Bounce like a superball into the air? My side is hurting from laughing so hard.

Plane goes into an inverted nosedive and hits the ground. Ergo it LITERALLY WENT INTO THE GROUND. Is english your first language SPreston? Because if it isn't I'll forgive your inability to understand the nuances of the language and the speaking style of people. The guy describes what the plane did.

here is another video of a plane "literally going into the ground":

...someone describing how the plane crashed into the ground is hilarious.

Is there a Stundie Awards for skeptics?!

GenRadek, the Ambassador said "it literally went into the ground," meaning it burrowing deep down through the ground, not "literally going into the ground" as you seem to be contending he was trying to describe that Flight 93 just hit the ground versus hitting water, or stopping 5 feet and levitating above ground.

Seriously dude, you think the Ambassador really had to attach the word "literally" if he's just trying to tell people that the plane hit the ground after falling from the sky? I mean really, what plane doesn't a plane hit the ground when it falls out of the sky! Everyone knew it didn't crash into water.

(Ah, I love when skeptics think someone makes a mistake and mocks and ridicules them when in reality, they are the ones who are mistaking and have to live with the huge embarrassment of having their foot in their mouths.)

But to hang your argument that the plane debris was buried..

Just for the record GenRadek, you don't think most of Flight 93 was buried underground as hooper believes?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Well, i can also see that you too really don't fully understand the nuances of people's speaking styles in the english language.

Why is it a big deal mentioning that someone said "literally went into the ground", and that somehow this means that the plane buried x% into it?

Nice try with the "stundie award" bit though. Hey, I'm not the one who is trying twist words into meaning something else.

How much do I think was buried in the crater? Hell, I dont know. But I do know that in such a crash scene, there will be fragments and larger pieces of the aircraft buried in the crater. However, trying to nit-pick, whine, moan and groan and acting all incredulous about exactly how much or why debris was buried in the crash is quite pathetic. Its like you are all behaving as if this is some sort of brand new phenomenon that was only ever seen in the Flight 93 crash and never ever ever in any other recorded crash in all of aeronautical history. Guys, its pathetic. Grow up!

Originally posted by GenRadek
Well, i can also see that you too really don't fully understand the nuances of people's speaking styles in the english language.

Dude, you had to ADD WORDS to the guy's quote to try to twist it to what you wanted it to mean!!!

Let me help you with the English language so you understand why he was saying:

in·to

PREPOSITION:

1. To the inside or interior of: went into the house.

Did you see that? "Went into the house," or how it relates to what we are talking about "went into the [ground]."

Now remember his exact quote? "it literally went into the ground."

Now if you need more to understand this, remember he used the word "literally" before his statement about where the plane went after allegedly crashing:

lit·er·al·ly

ADVERB:

3. Usage Problem
1. Really; actually:

So in translation you'll be able to understand (I hope): "the plane actually went inside the ground."

Why is it a big deal mentioning that someone said "literally went into the ground", and that somehow this means that the plane buried x% into it?

You are right, some people don't care if the official story adds up or not, as long as people believe the official story, no questions asked.

Nice try with the "stundie award" bit though. Hey, I'm not the one who is trying twist words into meaning something else.

And another Stundie Award!

How much do I think was buried in the crater? Hell, I dont know.

10%? 20%? 50%? 80%? You don't even have an educated guess?

Its like you are all behaving as if this is some sort of brand new phenomenon that was only ever seen in the Flight 93 crash and never ever ever in any other recorded crash in all of aeronautical history.

Has a large aircraft ever mostly buried itself in history? If this was the first time, then surely the media would have made it headline news with it also making the front cover in a lot of technical and aviation magazines. Since it never did, it's more evidence that the official claim that most of Flight 93 was buried is a LIE.

Guys, its pathetic. Grow up!

You're telling people to grow up?! And a THIRD Stundie Award!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

Even MORE evidence the official story is that most of Flight 93 was underground:

"92%-93% of the remains of the aircraft and the people are still in that hole." - BARRY LICHTY, Mayor of Indian Lake

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

A female Memorial Ambassador (@2:29) saying the same thing as the above male Ambassador did about where Flight 93 went after allegedly crashing:

"The plane came in upside down -- went into the ground at a 45 degree angle."

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

stj911.org is even saying it!

According to eyewitnesses, Flight 93 plunged into the ground at high speed along a nearly vertical trajectory. The plane was apparently shredded on impact, and mostly buried, leaving an impact crater more than 80 feet long and 14 feet deep.

reply to post by ATH911


You still don't get it do you? Where is the official claim? If you don't have that then you are just putting bits and pieces of conversation together, and quite poorly I might add, and trying to salvage an argument that you lost.

Give it up, there is no official documentation, so no one is lying, and only you care.

Originally posted by hooper
Give it up, there is no official documentation, so no one is lying, and only you care.

With this quote, hooper has summed it up perfectly.

There is no official government story documentation about the quantity of the plane buried, recovered or otherwise.

Therefore, they can say what they like, imply what they like through the media and spin agents, and no one can question any facts about it.

The government might not be caught lying but without any official documentation, it is also not possible to determine if the truth has been told.

People like hooper take delight in reminding us that there's no official government documentation, as though it's something to be proud of. When that's the prevalent mentality, it shows the level of denial that's present.

And they wonder why some people call for reinvestigations...

A local saying most of the aircraft went into the ground:

I was on my back porch when it happened. It was on final approach like most aircraft in that flight path. It just rolled over to the right and went straight into the ground. I did the FOD walk to find survivors but of course there were none. Most of the aircraft went into the ground.

Posted Dec-25-2008 by "darkwing_719"

A skeptic, who thinks Loose Change's no-plane-crashed-at-Shanks claim is "nonsense," writes in a review of the movie "United 93" that the plane went into the ground:

Riveting real time account of 9/11 and United 93, September 11, 2006

By ROBERT F. Areddy

Second, to those who believe in the "Loose-Change" nonsense. The LC folks can't even get their own stories straight. In LC1, they said United 93 was shot down, then in LC2, they said the flight never crashed in PA. Ooooookkkkk.

This film is so well researched and so well shot that it borders on a documentary. Obviously the one thing missing are the actual conversations and final details of what happened on Flight 93 as it went into the ground.

Two JREF skeptics think most of Flight 93 buried itself in the ground.

beachnut
17th December 2006, 03:13 PM

I shot a bullet into the ground it was buried.

The plane went into the ground it was buried.

He is right they are different they both buried themselves in the ground, one in my backyard, one in PA.

robert thel liberal
May 12 2009, 05:00 PM

Mosot of the wreckage, from some point aft of the wings, was buried in the ground. This is relatively lose soil and rocks, glacial till brought in from elsewhere to fill in an abandoned pit mine. Note that the soil is piled up about four or five feet high down-range, consistant with having had such a large object inserted inder it.

Even "Gravy" the fake tour guide has on his website a report that Flight 93 burrowed into the ground!

Here on this mound and elsewhere, in hundreds of face-to-face conversations and on the telephone, Miller explains to families from New Jersey to Berkeley to Japan to Germany the grisly calculus of what happened to their loved ones: The Boeing 757 still heavily laden with jet fuel slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land that had long ago been strip-mined for coal. The impact spewed a fireball of horrific force across hundreds of acres of towering hemlocks and other trees, setting many ablaze. The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by ATH911]

Media reports saying Flight 93 burrowed underground (reporting it well after 9/11 which proves the point of my thread!).

Day of remembrance
David Westphal; News Tribune Washington Bureau
Published: 09/12/02

At 10:06 a.m., the final services began on a field near Shanksville, Pa., where United Flight 93 burrowed into the ground when passengers thwarted terrorists' plans to crash the plane into the Capitol or the White House.

The day that changed America
By Robb Frederick, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, September 11, 2002

The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart. It disintegrated, digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy from the old mine work.

Town embraces role it never sought
The Standard-Times on September 11, 2002.

The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater.

Small town shoulders a nation's grief

© St. Petersburg Times
published September 10, 2003

The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it.

At Flight 93 crash site, family members return; lack of hoopla welcome
Friday, September 12, 2003
By Marylynne Pitz, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

STONYCREEK, Pa. -- Bagpipe music drifted over a hill and into this tranquil valley as nearly 40 family members returned to weep, pray and leave flowers on the ground that swallowed their loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001.

Flight 93 caretakers
September 11, 2008
Baltimore Sun

Waiting to hear stories about the brave passengers and crew of doomed Flight93, waiting to pay their respects, waiting to sit on benches and gaze across a field decorated with white Queen Anne's lace to the spot where a streaking jet was swallowed up by the earth.

Terrorism awakened a sleepy Shanksville
Gannett News Service

After buzzing Somerset County, Flight 93 burrowed into a secluded field that was a reclaimed strip mine, two miles from the district’s only school and its 500 pre-kindergarten to senior high school students.

Pennsylvania Firefighters Share Bond With Flight 93 Families
Posted: 09-11-2008
Firehouse.com

Dave Andolina, who drove the Central City fire engine to the crash, said it was a hopeless feeling when he arrived. "There was nothing. There were a few spot fires. There were no big pieces, nothing."

Shanksville Chief Terry Shaffer said the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft and closed up. He said the ground at the site was soft because it had been a strip mine.

(The earth literally opened, swallowed and closed up? The ground there is a living creature???)

BATTLE FOR FLIGHT 93
History Channel

There was not much left at the crash site. The impact of the fireball from the jet-fuel loaded 757 scorched hundreds of acres of earth around the site and set the surrounding trees ablaze for hours. The fuselage had burrowed so far into the earth that the "black box" was found at a depth of 25 feet below ground .

Sacred Ground in Pennsylvania
St. Anthony Messenger

But it took a while to identify the exact location of impact because there was no plane visible. Sally remembers Jamie phoning them from the site and saying, “There is no plane there, believe me.”

The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage.

Memories of Flight 93 crash still fresh at 5-year anniversary
Sunday, September 03, 2006
post-gazette.com

State police Maj. Frank Monaco remembers the crash site as a "smoking hole in the ground."

"It didn't look like a plane crash," says Maj. Monaco, 56, from New Kensington.

The plane had burrowed into the soft, reclaimed earth of the former strip mine and crumpled like an accordion, he says

Just in case the skeptics don't know that "burrowed into" means:

TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, September 8, 2002

At 9:39 a.m., American Flight 77 burrowed into the side of the Pentagon.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by ATH911]

Even Lisa Beamer says most of the plane was underground!

Lisa Beamer's version of the crash site (as told in her 2002 book):

"I didn't see a single piece of airplane anywhere. The authorities said that they had found a few engine parts, one large piece in a pond about half a mile away, and some small fragments about the size of a notebook. Other than that, the plane had totally disintegrated. Tiny pieces of plane debris were embedded in the trees surrounding the site. More than 400 rescue workers had combed the area searching for fragments or anything that could identify victims. Little could be found. Because of the reclaimed strip mine, the ground was softer than other surrounding areas. The plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground."

The above can be found on page 231.

(Transcribed by "wntthetrth" at the LC1 forum.)

[edit on 25-10-2009 by ATH911]

There's only so much propaganda that you can supply to them, ATH. Nice job pulling up all of those quotes.

However, hooper has already trumped you... there isn't an official government report about it, so they can't be held responsible for any claims.

Yet, it's funny how the propaganda machine kicked in to sell the story via word of mouth, myth, rumour and plain old BS.

There's enough disinfo out there, as we've seen that many official government story believers don't know what to believe about the alleged Flight UA93 allegedly burying itself in the crater.

And they wonder why some people want a better investigation...

edited in light of Moderator response to above post.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, hooper has already trumped you... there isn't an official government report about it, so they can't be held responsible for any claims.

Not only is it funny how in denial people like hooper are that the official story is that most of the plane buried, but that part of the story actually makes the official story add up (as far as the official story goes that is) because if 95% of the plane was recovered and photos and video of the scene after right after the alleged crash shows a max of 15% of debris above ground (And I'm being very generous! It looks more like a max of 5% above ground.), all that remaining 80% of the plane has to be somewhere and how convenient that the government says that most of the debris was buried deep in the ground where the public couldn't see it!

[edit on 25-10-2009 by ATH911]

To preface, I subscribe to the inside job theory.

But, I think this is the wrong road of inquiry to go down, because it leads to questions about what happened to Flight 93 which can't be answered beyond a reasonable doubt unless it did crash in Shanksville.

I think a lot of people who focus heavily on Shanksville and the Pentagon really, really, really think that one or both of these are the "smoking guns" that establish an inside job thesis.

But, really, they're not.

Consider, instead:

1. That the government did nothing to investigate the suspicious stock transactions that presaged 9/11.

2. That GWB did nothing to leave the elementary school in a timely fashion.

3. That Osama bin-Laden did not publicly brag about the deadliest terror attack in the history of the world until, allegedly, on the eve of the 2004 Presidential Election.

In my book, those are much harder to explain under the official theory than Shanksville or the Pentagon.

They have the official story slightly wrong at wikipedia:

Flight 93 fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater.[70] Investigators found some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles (13 km) from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania.[71] Other tiny aircraft fragments were found 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania.[72]

It should say:

"Most of the aircraft wreckage was found under the impact crater"

Can someone go there and fix it?

[edit on 25-10-2009 by ATH911]