Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





The news NEVER reported where most of the passenger were located after the alleged crash.


Does it really matter exactly where each pitifully small piece of human being was recovered from? Are you that ghoulish that you need to know so and so's 3rd vetrabrae was recovered in the crater and their little toe was found 20 feet outside the crater?




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Does it really matter exactly where each pitifully small piece of human being was recovered from?

No, just where the bulk of the body parts were.


Are you that ghoulish that you need to know so and so's 3rd vetrabrae was recovered in the crater and their little toe was found 20 feet outside the crater?

Like the government who mapped out where all the alleged Flight 77 passenger bodies were inside the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Different crash, different type of destruction.....less destruction to the remains of the passengers on board the plane. Much easier to lay out what BODIES were recovered from where.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Different crash, different type of destruction.....less destruction to the remains of the passengers on board the plane. Much easier to lay out what BODIES were recovered from where.

How can that be? Flight 77 crashed into a fortified building and burned up to hardly anything, yet its passengers bodies remained intact, but Flight 93 nose-dived it soft ground and mostly buried itself with 95% of the plane supposedly being recovered, but it shredded its passengers to a mere 8% of total mass? Even YOU can't believe that!

So if Flight 93 was mostly buried, wouldn't it be logical that most of the passenger remains were buried to? yes or no



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Why do you insist on this myth that 95% of the plane was "buried"?

Flight 77 crashed into a building, a confined space, a box, hence, the remains of the plane and passengers was also confined to a finite location. Flight 93 crashed into an open field. You can see there is a difference.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Why do you insist on this myth that 95% of the plane was "buried"?

80%. That's the official claim. Do you agree with that claim? yes or no


Flight 77 crashed into a building, a confined space, a box, hence, the remains of the plane and passengers was also confined to a finite location. Flight 93 crashed into an open field. You can see there is a difference.

Yet hardly anything of that plane was left, but they were able to map out the passengers bodies and 95% of Flight 93 was supposedly RECOVERED (not meaning all of that was buried. 80% was that claim) but no bodies and only 8% total body mass recovered. Please tell me you don't believe that!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Why do you insist on this myth that 95% of the plane was "buried"?

80%. That's the official claim. Do you agree with that claim? yes or no

Please show or direct me to the document and source for the "80% claim".


Flight 77 crashed into a building, a confined space, a box, hence, the remains of the plane and passengers was also confined to a finite location. Flight 93 crashed into an open field. You can see there is a difference.

Yet hardly anything of that plane was left, but they were able to map out the passengers bodies and 95% of Flight 93 was supposedly RECOVERED (not meaning all of that was buried. 80% was that claim) but no bodies and only 8% total body mass recovered. Please tell me you don't believe that!


Please show me or direct me to the document that verifies that "hardly anything of the plane left".



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooperPlease show me or direct me to the document that verifies that "hardly anything of the plane left".

Oh I'm sorry. How much of Flight 77 was recovered then?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Sorry, you made the statement and used it as a basis for your thesis. The burden is on you to either show a reference or note that it has no basis in fact.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Fine, I take it back. How much of Flight 77 was recovered then?

Also, any rational explanation of the OP?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


As to the OP it begs the same question as your other recent statments, where is the "official" claim that 80% of the plane was buried?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


As to the OP it begs the same question as your other recent statments, where is the "official" claim that 80% of the plane was buried?

Are you disputing that official claim? And yes, that's the official claim.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I am simply asking for the reference and/or documentation. Not quotes from newspapers or other news media. But the government documents wherein it is stated that 80% of the plane was buried.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Just for the sake of discussion, 80% by volume of a 757-200 is about 53 cubic yards of material. About 1 and 1/2 large roll-off dumpsters.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

The Flight 93 ambassadors, who are trained to recite the official story, are saying that 80% of the plane was in the ground. Do you agree with this OFFICIAL claim? yes or no



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

It's about 24 sedan cars. Don't tell me they only have a pic of one engine part coming out of the ground and the news never reported when it was realized that most of the plane was underground.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Again, the only reference I have for this claim is your posts. Can't you point at some document or document source to substantiate, what at this point, is YOUR claim that 80% was buried?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Duuuuh, I thought it was common knowledge that planes instantly vaporize when they touch ANYTHING. Remnants, shmemnants.

People who are STILL buying the "official" story refuse to see what is plainly
there....or NOT there in the case of flight 93. We may never get all of the facts about what happened that day, but I think most of us have a pretty damned good general idea of what went down.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

OK I'll dig for it. But in the meantime, do you agree that 80% of a 757 was buried under that shallow crater at Shanks?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

It's about 24 sedan cars. Don't tell me they only have a pic of one engine part coming out of the ground and the news never reported when it was realized that most of the plane was underground.



I don't know how many pics "they" have. It may be substantially more, but were never released in respect for the dead. All you can say is that is the one pic that you saw, you can't say it is the only one. As for the 24 sedans, I was talking about volume. Not weight. Correct me if I am wrong, but the gross weight of the plane is about 220,000lbs. 80% of that is 176,000lb. I averaged the weight by volume for the plane at approximately 125lb/cu ft. (Aluminum is 165lb/cu ft). 176,000 divided by 125 equals 1408 cu ft. 1408 cu ft divided by 27 converts to 52, say 53. The typical large roll-off trash container is 30 cu yard capacity, therefore about 1 and 1/2 containers.





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join