Evidence no plane crashed & buried in Shanksville; piles of dirt, but no piles of plane debris

reply to post by surfnow2


It seems that your beliefs of what may or may not happened, actually disagree with the OS, surfsnow2.

I will let ATH911 present one of your fallacy theories, since he is goading you in order to do so.

But contrary to your belief of, 'it seems that there was hard soil ground''; it was in fact noted as soft.

ATH911 will fill you in on the rest. If he hasnt already by beating me with this post.

Originally posted by surfnow2
i think your scenario is possible but probably didnt occur that way.

Hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what supposedly happened after Flight 93 supposedly crashed.

this is what i feel happened based off the photographic evidence i have seen of the site i would say this plane came almost straight down with a slight angle and on impact what wasnt vaporized was either buried or propelled like a trampoline. that ground there appears to be a hard soil ground area so the speed this plane was going was very fast

Wrong, wrong, wrong -- according to the official story.

Officially it crashed at a 40 degree angle. It was on its side, or slightly inverted and its wingtip struck first, sending the 757 end over which caused the front section to break off and explode into the woods. The ground was reported as "loose and uncompacted" from being a refilled strip mine. Because of this, the mid to rear section of the plane (constituting 80%) continued a downward path, tunneling through the "soft" soil where it accordioned against a layer of bedrock about 45 feet below (that's why they excavated down to that depth). Since the soil was loose, it fell back in on itself, covering up most of the newly made 45 foot hole to make it look like only a 10 foot deep crater. They supposedly had to dig 15 feet down to start recovering the plane pieces.

The FBI later claimed that recovered a whopping 95% of the 757. So only 5% went missing and/or vaporized.

Still believe the official story?

Originally posted by surfnow2
hey guys think rationaly here for a moment. does anyone think a group of people drove out to this site, dug it up buried plane parts and created a plane accident?

Who says anything was buried?


.

reply to post by ATH911

Um yeah, that photo of them supposedly unearthing that non-embedded dirt-free aged engine piece that coincidentally fits in the backhoe bucket also in the picture. Why do you think that the ONLY photo of them in the act of unearthing plane debris when supposedly they unearthed 80% of a 757?!?

Why? How many photos should there be? I didn't know there was a standard number of photos required. Dirt-free???? You can't see any dirt on that thing. Dear Lord - game over.

A thousand? Wow. I can only think of two. 1) pre-plant the engine. 2) Lower and drop an engine scrap in an ongoing excavated hole with a backhoe bucket, then photograph it as if they just unearthed it.

Mod Edit: Needless insult removed
Why bother with a backhoe? Why not just have a couple of guys on their hands and knees excavation dirt from around the piece with hand tools? That really much better conveys the image of burial and excavation.

The colors will be limited to what airlines plane supposedly crashed there. So, what colors are those little pieces also seen in the hole?

Really? How so? Wouldn't pieces embedded in the earth also display the color of the surrounding material? What are the total number of color variations for that variety and model of plane? All colors now - not just the ones you see on your pretty intergoogle photos. All colors, inside, outside, hidden, exposed, including the colors of all the cargo and the luggage that was on board, not to mention personal articles of the deceased.

reply to post by dalepmay


Wow, the mods here really did it this time. I described a scientific method to prove that the amount of dirt was the correct amount to fill the holes, regardless of how much debris is also there. And the mods consider that a personal attack? Since when is stating scientific fact a personal attack?

Originally posted by dalepmay
reply to post by dalepmay

 

Wow, the mods here really did it this time. I described a scientific method to prove that the amount of dirt was the correct amount to fill the holes, regardless of how much debris is also there. And the mods consider that a personal attack? Since when is stating scientific fact a personal attack?

You must be on the kind of pills you said I was on if you really don't know why.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911

 

Here, on the same tactic....pick any OTHER similar airplane crash. That not even YOU will dispute:

USAir 427 (dove almost straight in).
United 585 (dove almost straight in).
PSA 1771 (dove almost straight in).

What do you mean by "straight in"?

SwissAir 111 (hit at high speed...actual impact attitude unknown, FDR lost power).

Were the other planes acting like Divas upon impact?!

Typical dodge.

I asked a pertinent question, and gave you FOUR examples to utilize, in order for you to "prove" your assertions about United 93.

Your response? Dodge. Deride. Dodge. Deride. You only have one setting, and it isn't one that is seeking answers....and I won't even begin to guess about the comment RE: "Divas" (???...where your mind is, I haven't a clue).


Now, again....DO YOU DISPUTE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRASHES OF:

USAir 427

United 585

PSA 1771

SwissAir 111 ????

Do you acknowledge the reality of THOSE crashes, and the approximate similarity, in ANGLE OF IMPACT with the ground, to United 93? NONE of them are an exact match, of course...NO ACCIDENT IS EVER AN EXACT COPY of another. However, for comparison's sake, they are valuable research.


Now....either you ACCEPT the reality of those four cases.....OR, you may wish to use the same inane, convoluted, illogical and ridiculous methods you have presented in this, and approximately 27+ other threads....to make claims regarding those crashes. You can use the available photos, only what you can obtain via the Internet, to argue that THOSE crashes were all "faked"....because, in essence, the available photos that "documented" those cases, that are available on the Internet, are just about the same quality and quantity as exist for United 93.

SO, have at it!! Go ahead, use the same "methodology" as you've displayed for 27+ threads now, in this weird obsession over United 93, and apply it to those other four cases. I know you have it in you!!!

n/m

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Typical dodge.

How is asking "What do you mean by "straight in"? " a dodge?!

Now, again....DO YOU DISPUTE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRASHES OF:

USAir 427

United 585

PSA 1771

SwissAir 111 ????

Do you acknowledge the reality of THOSE crashes, and the approximate similarity, in ANGLE OF IMPACT with the ground, to United 93?

I don't know, approx what angles did all of those crash at?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by empireoflizards

 

Again, the "debris field" extent was an indication of the incredible impact forces, and the way that some material will eject, under those forces, in many unpredictable ways.

Additionally....MUCH of this "debris" was very lightweight material....the kind of stuff that could easily have been lofted from the concussion of the exploding fireball, and then carried for some distance on the winds.

Once again weedy, complete BS. No plane crashed in Shanksville. No matter how hard you try, you will never convince ANYONE who has a brain. I am so sick and tired of the BS.

Below is an ATS link comparing some of the other previously mentioned airline crashes to Flight 93. As you can see, there is significant photographic evidence of downed airliners in the photographs of the other crashes, however, there is relatively little or no physical evidence of a large commercial aircraft in the Flight 93 photos. Significant evidence pertains to what is shown within the photos, not necessarily the number of photos.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No doubt, one should take a close look into these other 'comparison crashes' and not be hoodwinked into believing nonsensical claims which are based on sheer fantasy. Although the Flight 93 crash was the most recent and most famous of all these crashes, the photographic evidence presented in attempting to verify Part IV of the 9/11 farce is woefully unacceptable.

The fact that the aircraft was never reconstructed and presented for viewing to the media stinks of cover up. With so many unknown variables playing a role in the crash, the reconstruction should have been Priority #1 for a competent and professional aviation investigative crew. However, if actual pieces from Flight 93 did not exist at the scene, this could have surely put a damper on any reconstruction efforts.

Originally posted by dalepmay

I described a scientific method to prove that the amount of dirt was the correct amount to fill the holes, regardless of how much debris is also there. And the mods consider that a personal attack? Since when is stating scientific fact a personal attack?

bolding for emphasis

...since you caged it this way:

1. Take a sandbox, full of dirt, completely level.
2. Take a bucket of rocks, metal, your stupid pills, whatever, and smash it all into the dirt.
3. Now, dig all that debris and dirt out and put it into piles.
4. Sort/sift through it, to recover your bucket of rocks, metal, stupid pills, etc. That is your wreckage. Now ship it to a warehouse to be stored as evidence.
5. Now, take pictures of the remaining piles of dirt that have been sorted/sifted already. Those piles are the exact amount needed to fill the holes you dug. Amazing.

bolding for emphasis

...the needless side-jab with the inclusion of the 'stupid pills' bit was seen as an attack. Not sure how to view it in any other way.

As always - if you feel the action taken was unwarranted, then you are free to u2u the Moderator who actioned that (you would have received a u2u notification of it informing of who it was) or utilise the Complain/Suggestion link in your Member Centre.



Cheers.

Polite Mod Request

Hi People,


I do appreciate that the 9-11 topic/discussions can be frustrating at times, and can be quite passionate...but they should never become poisonous.

The 9-11 Forum is certainly frequented by people with strong opinions...many of whom quite knowledgeable as well I'm sure.

So I'm sure we can all voice our opinions without slipping in any personal attacks, or sidejabs or any such other actions.


Please review this thread: Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas) for further clarification if necessary.



Thanks people.

Ath...

Ive seen you around the 9/11 forums for a while now...

You are passionate about the deceit that took place that day, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people of all nationalities...for that sir, I applaud you.
You would also be aware that some very cunning and well trained people frequent these forums with only one goal..to sabotage any thread, using any method possible, so that the reality of that day remains "swept under the carpet"...

This thread is following the exact path of most other threads...it is riddled with the Usual Suspects trying to rile and bait you.....

Ignore them best you can...you know what they are doing, its clear....

...its also a sure-fire sign that you are onto something when the boyz arrive...they know that planes dont vapourise into nothing...that only happens on Star Trek.
They also know that planes dont crash into the ground and get "swallowed" without as much as a slight scorching on the grass adjacent....

Must be a hard job trying to defend the Fairytale that is the OS....and certainly not a job that any normal person would want...let alone any person with a grain of morality.

Nice thread ATH...good on you for pushing back!!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Why?

Think of it logically, if you had to stage something, would it be easier to stage one photo, or multiple photos?

Dirt-free???? ... Dear Lord - game over.

Yes, you would agree that if that supposedly unearthed engine was dirt-free, it would be "game over" for the perps? Now please, show me all the caked-on dirt on that engine piece that should be there.

Why bother with a backhoe?

What better way to hide the engine piece going in and then being able to quickly take it out because you know it will fit in the backhoe's bucket?

Why not just have a couple of guys on their hands and knees excavation dirt from around the piece with hand tools? That really much better conveys the image of burial and excavation.

How would they have planted that engine piece in the first place? Remember, that engine piece in the photo wasn't planted, it was just staged. Easier and less-risky.

Wouldn't pieces embedded in the earth also display the color of the surrounding material?

WTF???

What are the total number of color variations for that variety and model of plane? All colors now - not just the ones you see on your pretty intergoogle photos. All colors, inside, outside, hidden, exposed

If you want to think every plane was a rainbow of colors on them, you go ahead.

including the colors of all the cargo and the luggage that was on board, not to mention personal articles of the deceased.

I didn't know all that's made of metal, but speaking of luggage, there were reportedly 44 people on board. Odds are that at least 80 pieces of luggage was on that plane. Please show me a photo of at least one piece of luggage.


.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Below is an ATS link comparing some of the other previously mentioned airline crashes to Flight 93. As you can see, there is significant photographic evidence of downed airliners in the photographs of the other crashes, however, there is relatively little or no physical evidence of a large commercial aircraft in the Flight 93 photos. Significant evidence pertains to what is shown within the photos, not necessarily the number of photos.

The official reason little of Flight 93 looked to be left is because most of the plane (80%) had supposedly buried in the ground and the loose dirt covered the hole back up.

Of course, I'm still waiting for the skeptics to show hard evidence tons and tons of plane debris was unearthed out of the ground there.

Funny how you see large piles and piles of dirt around the excavated hole, but no signs of plane debris anywhere! Hence, the point of this thread.


.

reply to post by ATH911

The official reason little of Flight 93 looked to be left is because most of the plane (80%) had supposedly buried in the ground and the loose dirt covered the hole back up.

Of course, I'm still waiting for the skeptics to show hard evidence tons and tons of plane debris was unearthed out of the ground there.

Funny how you see large piles and piles of dirt around the excavated hole, but no signs of plane debris anywhere! Hence, the point of this thread.

So, basically, what it all comes down to is that to you reality = what you can google on the internet.

Do you see why this line of reasoning has been hitting a dead end for so long?


.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

So, basically, what it all comes down to is that to you reality = what you can google on the internet.

Do you see why this line of reasoning has been hitting a dead end for so long?

That's rich coming from someone who doesn't even know the whole official story.

reply to post by ATH911


I don't understand the connection - I do know the "official story" just can't follow the new, composite ATH911 "official story".

Again reality does not = google images. It is a little deeper than that. Some basics - a photo is a capture of a single moment in time. Just because something is not in a photo does not mean it does not exist or never existed. Things may occasionally be different before a photo is taken, and then may change after the photo is taken. This is a basic understanding of reality that humans have.