Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 06:21 PM by ATH911

reply to post by hooper

Apparently you didn't get my factiousness for you asking for some "official document" because you know officials never released any official document describing the crash details in any detailed manner.

Most of the details of the alleged crash came in the way of news reports and the Flight 93 memorial ambassadors. That's why I said official claim.

So now that's cleared up, any further suggestion from you that I claimed there is an official "document" making these buried claims is a lie on your part.

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 07:16 PM by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

Apparently you didn't get my factiousness for you asking for some "official document" because you know officials never released any official document describing the crash details in any detailed manner.

Most of the details of the alleged crash came in the way of news reports and the Flight 93 memorial ambassadors. That's why I said official claim.

So now that's cleared up, any further suggestion from you that I claimed there is an official "document" making these buried claims is a lie on your part.

So you have someone, somewhere claiming specifically that 80% or 90% or something like that, was buried? Maybe a news report, or something. In other words, there is nothing officially saying that the plane was buried. So what is the problem?

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 07:58 PM by OmegaPoint

The problem is there's this gash in the gound, but bo wreckage, that's the problem..

reply posted on 30-9-2009 @ 09:15 AM by hooper

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The problem is there's this gash in the gound, but bo wreckage, that's the problem..

Can I hold you to that? NO wreckage. None, nada, zip, nothing. Not one iota, not one bit, not one scrap?

Or do you mean you don't THINK the photos that you saw on the internet show the correct amount according to your calculations?

reply posted on 30-9-2009 @ 06:09 PM by ATH911

Originally posted by hooperSo you have someone, somewhere claiming specifically that 80% or 90% or something like that, was buried? Maybe a news report, or something. In other words, there is nothing officially saying that the plane was buried. So what is the problem?

No, you are wrong as usual. The official story states most of the plane went underground. Call the FBI's Pittsburgh offices if you need an official documents stating that.

But don't get too upset Hooper, I agree with you that there is no way in hell most of a 757 buried there.

reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 02:52 PM by hooper

[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link
..............................................................................

Again and again - where the hell are you getting this from? What makes it official? And more semantic drift - it was 80% or 85% or 90% and now it is "most". Most can mean 51%. So 51% of the 95% of the plane was embedded in the ground at the crash site. That means an effective percentage of 48%. Is that impossible? Or do you want to change your ratios again?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 07:20 PM by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Again and again - where the hell are you getting this from? What makes it official?

Um, cause it comes from officials?

And more semantic drift - it was 80% or 85% or 90% and now it is "most".

I never changed the %. The official buried claim is 80% of the plane, which is most. 95% is the official claim of the total amount of Flight 93 was recovered.

Not sure why you're haggling. You agree with me that most of a 757 was not buried underground.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by ATH911]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 05:49 AM by hooper

From what officials? In what capacity? In what context? Do you have an actual quote? Do you have someone, acting in an official capacity stating explicitly that X% of the plane was embedded at the crash site or is this your inference based on the 95% recovered and YOU think YOU only see 5 or 10% of the plane mass above ground in the photos.

And I do not agree with you about anything, as I can't get you to say ahything consistent. It think it is more than possible that a great deal of the plane mass that did not burn up could have embedded itself in the ground at the site.

..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 06:53 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Who, please who, said the plane was buried?

Reheat stated that the bulk of the plane was buried.

Swampfox stated that they needed to dig 50 feet to recover the wreckage.
Swampfox stated that he had to rely on 'reports' that lead him to believe that around 40% was buried.

exponent stated that a large amount of the plane was buried.
exponent stated that there are pictures of a large part of the fuselage that was dug out.

hooper stated that around 40% of the plane was buried.

hooper, there's a list of four people who claim at least 40% to a large part of the plane was buried. Funny, you happen to be on the list... you might want to crosscheck your previous answer with your current question, so you don't look like you're contradicting yourself.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 07:07 AM by hooper

Sorry, I was asked to guess - so I guessed. I did not state it. The whole thing is based on a supposed "official claim" or "official story" that stated that 95% of the plane was buried. I can pretty much see know that is patently an all and out lie on the part of the person proposing that the official claim is out there. Why would someone lie about that, I wonder? What are they covering up?

..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 07:11 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, I was asked to guess - so I guessed. I did not state it.

At this point your credibility in this thread has been shot to pieces.

You stated your guess, hooper. You stated that you think that 40% of the plane could have been buried. If you did not think that 40% was possibly buried, then you would not have used that figure as an allowable parameter.

I've given you a list of four people, you included, who clearly stated that they think the plane was buried to at least 40% or more.

I've clearly answered your question and you've clearly tried to recant your previous statement.

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 07:51 AM by hooper

Sorry, but my question is now and always has been the same - where is this official report?

..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 07:53 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, but my question is now and always has been the same - where is this official report?

Dodge, avoid, deflect...

One of your recent questions was "Who said the plane was buried?"

I answered it for you and you tried to recant your previous statement based on my answer.

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 08:34 AM by hooper

So then the only official source for the claim that the plane was buried is four people on an internet forum. And this is the basis for claiming that 911 is a giant government cover up. Glad I got that cleared up.

..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 08:39 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
So then the only official source for the claim that the plane was buried is four people on an internet forum.

Avoid, deflect, dodge...

hooper, please quote me where I stated that these four people were official sources? Your failure to do so will be an admission that you have got it terribly wrong.

You have failed to realise that I answered your direct question: "Who said the plane was buried?' Where in that question did you ask for an official source?

I answered your question. Those four people stated that the plane was buried to at least 40% or more.

You then recanted your previous statement in light of my answer.

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 09:51 AM by hooper

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
So then the only official source for the claim that the plane was buried is four people on an internet forum.

Avoid, deflect, dodge...

hooper, please quote me where I stated that these four people were official sources? Your failure to do so will be an admission that you have got it terribly wrong.

You have failed to realise that I answered your direct question: "Who said the plane was buried?' Where in that question did you ask for an official source?

I answered your question. Those four people stated that the plane was buried to at least 40% or more.

You then recanted your previous statement in light of my answer.

Well, if you have been reading the threads, you will realize that who meant official source.

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 08:11 PM by ATH911

Originally posted by tezzajw
Avoid, deflect, dodge...

hooper, please quote me where I stated that these four people were official sources? Your failure to do so will be an admission that you have got it terribly wrong.

hooper is a troll. You'd be best off putting him on ignore like I just did.

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 08:21 PM by ATH911

Skeptics, you got a big problem. On 9/13 through 9/14, the crews supposedly found the black boxes 15ft and 25ft below the ground -- 10 feet apart deep and thus would have discovered the bulk of Flight 93 did not disintegrate above ground, but was actually under ground as officials claim.

If this was the case, then the FBI would have told the media that they found where most of the plane went. But check the news. There is absolutely no mention in the news when this should have happened. Only months and years later did the news report that most of the plane was underground.

reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 06:15 AM by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, you got a big problem. On 9/13 through 9/14, the crews supposedly found the black boxes 15ft and 25ft below the ground -- 10 feet apart deep and thus would have discovered the bulk of Flight 93 did not disintegrate above ground, but was actually under ground as officials claim.

If this was the case, then the FBI would have told the media that they found where most of the plane went. But check the news. There is absolutely no mention in the news when this should have happened. Only months and years later did the news report that most of the plane was underground.

Still insisting that officials are claiming that most of the plane was found underground and that this was in the news somewhere. Wow.

reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 07:20 PM by Swampfox46_1999

Im pretty sure this is what I said...

I believe a large section of it ended up in that crater when it crashed. Whether it was 40...50...or 60 percent of the wreckage (or more) I do not know, I wasnt there to dig it out. I have to rely on the reports from the people that were

Im not getting hung up on percentages like some posters do. Nor do I believe that the plane dug itself a hole and pulled the dirt in on top of it to bury itself. It hit the ground and penetrated into the ground. Whether 20, 30 or even 80 percent of the wreckage ended up in the crater, no one will ever know for sure, they can only estimate. No one sat there with a scale to weigh each piece when it was recovered to keep track of how much was in the crater and how much was around the crater.

But I do commend Tezza for finally recognizing that I am an expert on the events of that day. (he must...he is constantly using my posts to back himself up)