Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
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?


No, why would I agree or even disagree with anything? And when and how did it become a "shallow" crater? Based on what standard for craters? How deep should it be or not be? And what do you mean "under" the crater? If some of the material of the plane is mixed in with the displaced earth does this qualify or not qualify as "buried"?




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, why would I agree or even disagree with anything? And when and how did it become a "shallow" crater? Based on what standard for craters? How deep should it be or not be? And what do you mean "under" the crater? If some of the material of the plane is mixed in with the displaced earth does this qualify or not qualify as "buried"?

I just want to know if you think a claim of 80% of a 757 being buried under that 10ft-deep (i.e. shallow) crater (meaning they have to dig down through the crater) is absurd or not. It's just a simple question. Not sure why you seem to be avoiding it at all costs.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
No, why would I agree or even disagree with anything? And when and how did it become a "shallow" crater? Based on what standard for craters? How deep should it be or not be? And what do you mean "under" the crater? If some of the material of the plane is mixed in with the displaced earth does this qualify or not qualify as "buried"?

I just want to know if you think a claim of 80% of a 757 being buried under that 10ft-deep (i.e. shallow) crater (meaning they have to dig down through the crater) is absurd or not. It's just a simple question. Not sure why you seem to be avoiding it at all costs.


No



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No

So if you don't think it's absurd, then if 80% of Flight 93 buried itself underground, isn't it logical that most of the passengers buried down with the plane wreckage too?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
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!


And therein lies the problem....you have some faulty beliefs. Flight 77 crashed into a building that is true. However, only the exterior wall had been hardened, even still, it was about a foot thick. Its course continued on for quite a while, around 300 feet. Flight 93 crammed itself into a hole less than the length of its fuselage. Flight 77 pentrated through maybe a cumulative 18 feet of actual walls, punch through one wall....continue to the next, punch through it...on to the next till it stopped 300 feet from the intial impact. Flight 93, although it crashed into "soft" dirt, encountered a hell of a lot more resistance and did much more destruction to the human beings on board.

If you cannot understand that the forces that acted upon the bodies of the passengers, crews and hijackers of flight 77 were much less than those of Flight 93, then it is pointless to continue the conversation. Then the mistaken belief that the majority of Flight 77 burned up. It left quite a bit of wreckage in the building, in the courtyard, on the lawn, on the freeway...etc....



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Only if in the world you live in there is no physical difference between and air plane and a mammal.

Just for the record, I assume you are going to direct me to those "official" documents that claim that 80% of the physical remainder of the plane was buried below the lowest observable point in the impact crater.

Also, please define "buried". Does a piece of plane fuselage found two inches below the disturbed earth of the bottom of the impact crater qualify as "buried".

And, of course, I assume that you have some way of officially proving that no human remains were found in the impact crater.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I posted some of these pics earlier. They seemed to be glossed over. The Iranian plane crash was indeed a real plane crash.

Flight 93 or a boeing 757 did not crash on 911. To stage such an event would not be difficult at all. To sell it? Easy, we l'l buy anything.

Here are some of the pictures from a real plane crash that crashed in a similar fashion as flight 93.

Do not argue intent. Someones intention should not effect the laws of physics.










Now here is flight 93 that 'crashed' in Shanksville Pen. on September 11th,2001.


Quite obvious that a boeing 757 did not crash there.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
No

So if you don't think it's absurd, then if 80% of Flight 93 buried itself underground, isn't it logical that most of the passengers buried down with the plane wreckage too?


Wow, that is as about as far from logical as you can get. Really, that is so way out there that I can't even find a point of reference to begin to try to guide you back from that delusion.

Well, I'll give it a try but you've got to make some effort.

First, you have to really let go of this "buried" fantasy. Somehow or another you have it in your mind that somebody in the government told you that the plane was buried under the crater. I think you may have gotten lost in your own semantical maze. You probably heard some first responder or law enforcement personnel make an off hand comment about how some of the material from the plane was buried. Now, buried could and does mean a lot of things, depending on the situation and the person speaking. If a building collapses and there is someone trapped under the rubble someone could say the person was "buried" and not necassarily mean that somebody dug a hole and then threw in the person and the rubble. In fact, buried is more often used as a word to connote "covered" as opposed to a process including excavation and backfill.

Are we getting somehere here?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Similar crash? The pilot intentionally crashed it at high speed? I'm not postive, but am pretty sure he wasnt playing kamikaze. The guys of Flight 93 were.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Similar crash? The pilot intentionally crashed it at high speed? I'm not postive, but am pretty sure he wasnt playing kamikaze. The guys of Flight 93 were.


So using your 'fuzzy' logic then that would mean flight 93 would of made more of a crater then the Iranian plane crash which isn't the case.


Sigh. If you read the post I specifically said that intention cannot change the laws of physics.

The truth of the matter is that the Boeing 757 also known as flight 93, did not crash in Shanksville.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Umm no, thats not what it means. An airliner, flying at a 45 degree nosedown angle at speed, will leave a smaller hole than an airliner hitting the ground at a shallower angle.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If you cannot understand that the forces that acted upon the bodies of the passengers, crews and hijackers of flight 77 were much less than those of Flight 93, then it is pointless to continue the conversation.

Flight 77 supposedly collided with a dozen concrete fortified columns inside and the plane supposedly "liquefied," but yet the passengers bodies remained intact.



But this is getting off-topic. I brought it up to make the point below.



Flight 93, although it crashed into "soft" dirt, encountered a hell of a lot more resistance and did much more destruction to the human beings on board.

Regardless, you do concede that most of the passenger remains should be down in the "hole" with where most of UA93 supposedly was?


Flight 93 crammed itself into a hole less than the length of its fuselage.

And we are still awaiting your extraordinary proof of that!



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First, you have to really let go of this "buried" fantasy. Somehow or another you have it in your mind that somebody in the government told you that the plane was buried under the crater. I think you may have gotten lost in your own semantical maze.

So let me get this straight, you now say you think it's absurd that most of Flight 93 buried itself under that shallow crater?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I do not know where the moronic idea came from that the plane liquified. And it has never been mentioned that the bodies were all found intact.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I do not know where the moronic idea came from that the plane liquified.

This "moronic" idea came from your heroes at PopularMechanics:


FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.

www.popularmechanics.com...

But don't worry, I think that idea is moronic too.




And it has never been mentioned that the bodies were all found intact.

Well the map I showed you was a map of where the passenger bodies were allegedly found, but the point was that in this alleged crash, most of the passengers were where most of the plane was.

Now that you like to skip of my other questions and comments, here you go again:

- Regardless, you do concede that most of the passenger remains should be down in the "hole" with where most of UA93 supposedly was?

- And we are still awaiting your extraordinary proof of that "Flight 93 crammed itself into a hole less than the length of its fuselage."!

[edit on 12-8-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation from the skeptics as to why the media did not report when most of the plane was "found" buried underground.

The ONLY rational explanation I can think of is the reason the media didn't report it when the plane was supposedly found buried is because the plane was never buried, so the media was never told the plane was found buried when it was supposedly found buried.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I notice all the usual suspects are here, battling it out, taunting each other, hashing over the same old, tired arguments from literally years past. Let me clue you in: you're wasting time in a fruitless endeavor. Meaning, if your planning on doing something with your "evidence", then stop wasting time on internet forums. You're not going to convince anyone, either way. There are no “fence sitters” at this point. All of the information, from both sides is amply available to anyone who even makes the slightest effort to look. If you don't unplug and take the fight to the street so-to-speak you're just blowing hot air on an internet forum; as has been done for years now. Don't get me wrong, IMHO you're entitled to any opinion you want. Contrary to those carrying the torch, I don't have a dog in this fight.

My point is only this: if you posses the convictions of your professed beliefs, do something other than parrot your thoughts back and forth to those that already agree with you. Take your message mainstream. Get noticed. You're (the royal you) lying to yourself if you think the tit-for-tat ad naseum arguments on this sub forum are moving the goal post(s) either way.

Then again, perhaps the mainstream thing has been tried before and what we are left with are the same small group of actors, saying much the same things they were almost eight years ago, on a conspiracy forum, on the internet.

It's a vicious trap, really.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

Soooo, do you have a rational explanation for why the media didn't report it when most of the plane was supposedly found buried?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation from the skeptics....(snippd by me)


I don't owe you one.

Our position has been explained for years, as has yours or some permutation of this particular thread. I refer you to literally years of back and forth bickering on this very forum, some of it from me. If you want to create some sort of false condition of victory in this thread and then dance when skeptics don't jump as you see fit, have at it.

The honest to God skeptics just don't care anymore. You think some big cabal of "them" pulled off whatever facet of 9-11 your focusing on today, fine. You think I am a "paid dis-info agent", awesome! I really don't care what (IMO only) delusions you all cook up. Talk about whatever you want, as long as you want.

In fairness, our side has bad-actors too. For example,those that take the bait and give life to these threads. For me, and me alone, (at this point) I read the 9-11 sub forum for pure entertainment. I know that's very offensive to say, to some of you. I don't mean it with the intention of a direct slur. Personally, I keep a watchful eye for some new nugget of information but, as said before, mostly for the comedy gold I see written within this sub-forum.

Just like you are entitled to speak your mind, so am I. Those are my two cents, directed at nobody in particular.

If you havent seen this web site, it might be worth checking out.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I don't owe you one.

You don't owe me a rational explanation, or you can't think of a rational explanation as to why the media didn't report it when most of the plane was "found" underground?

Don't worry, I can't think of a rational explanation either.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join