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

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



OK, let's see it.


Fine. Call the Airline. They have the remains. Ask if you can view them.

Believe it or not I don't have the remains out in my garage.

Sometimes you have to do more than surf the internet to find the "truth".

It was your claim. You prove it.

I claimed nothing buried. I showed no plane debris, just piles of dirt.

I proved mine, now you prove yours.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by hooper


Please answer the question - did you expect them to just throw everything in a pile?
Not necessarily.

Then why are you looking for a huge pile of plane wreckage and human remains?

Let me try and explain it this way. In the real world again, if I were going to empty something out of the ground and haul it away (noting that I am not talking about anything as delicate or important as human remains or plane wreckage as the result of a terrorist attack) you do not dig it up, put it in a pile and then dig it again and put it in a truck. That is called double handling and many a foreman has been fired for wasting money that way.


Now you going to answer my question, or continue to side-step it?


I seriously don't know what your question is.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
No debris?

Hmmm... Care to explain these?

(I do not know how to embed, so sorry if this is inconvenient)
















Yeah, no debris.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


The airline has the remains. You don't want to see them, I can understand.

But you've been told what, who, and where. The rest is up to you.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I appreciate your enthusiasm. I think somthing is very fishy about 93. I really think the answer lies in the history of the area.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Then why are you looking for a huge pile of plane wreckage and human remains?

Where did I say and human remains?! You obviously missed my question in that same post that answered that.


I seriously don't know what your question is.

More evidence you don't read very well:

I thought you didn't believe most of the plane buried?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I appreciate your enthusiasm. I think somthing is very fishy about 93. I really think the answer lies in the history of the area.


Please elaborate. As far as I know it is rural Pennsylvania, coal country. Anything else?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Question is when were those photos taken? Right after impact or a couple of days into the recovery effort?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
No debris?

Hmmm... Care to explain these?

I'm talking about the alleged debris that buried.

Btw, your first pic is of an Iranian crash and your last pic doesn't show any plane debris, unless your claiming a silver shovel was onboard the plane.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


The airline has the remains. You don't want to see them, I can understand.

But you've been told what, who, and where. The rest is up to you.

No I do, I just didn't think if a 757 crashed somewhere and 95% of it was recovered that in this day and age that you'd have to see the debris at the airlines warehouse and hardly any at the scene.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Question is when were those photos taken? Right after impact or a couple of days into the recovery effort?

During the excavation which happened between 9/13 and 9/16.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
if I were going to empty something out of the ground and haul it away (noting that I am not talking about anything as delicate or important as human remains or plane wreckage as the result of a terrorist attack) you do not dig it up, put it in a pile and then dig it again and put it in a truck. That is called double handling and many a foreman has been fired for wasting money that way.

Yeah because hauling all that dirt away along with the excavated debris and having to separate and dispose the dirt at your facility, instead of conveniently separating it and burying the dirt back at the field you dug it out of, is real cost effective.
edit on 18-12-2010 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I obtained the first picture from a 9/11 conspiracy website. Apparently I am not the only one who was wrong about that one.

If you can't see the scattered debris in the last picture, then I can't help you. It is not a shovel. Nice try, though.

Apparently you have nothing to say about the rest of the pictures.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden

It is not a shovel. Nice try, though.

You're saying that's a piece of plane debris?


Apparently you have nothing to say about the rest of the pictures.

Because it's not related to the alleged buried debris. Try to stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I thought you didn't believe most of the plane buried?


I don't think any of the plane was buried.

I think some portion of the physical remains became embedded in the earth upon impact and some did not. Most, some, about, is irrelevant and is just argumentative. There was, as far as I know and you know, no great effort expended categorizing the remains precisely with regards to final resting place because there was no need to.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So what do you think it was? A missile...?

~



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Title of thread:

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

Posting pictures of plane debris is off-topic? I know it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but would it be wrong to say that a dumpster full of--well, plane debris--qualifies as a pile of... plane debris?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



No I do, I just didn't think if a 757 crashed somewhere and 95% of it was recovered that in this day and age that you'd have to see the debris at the airlines warehouse and hardly any at the scene.


How long were you at the scene? And are you saying when you were at the scene you did not see any of the remains?

Or are you talking only about those photos you managed to find on the internet? Sorry, but that is not the final measure of reality.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 



I thought you didn't believe most of the plane buried?


I don't think any of the plane was buried.

So your are debating something your don't even believe in?!



I think some portion of the physical remains became embedded in the earth upon impact and some did not.

Too bad the official story says most of it buried and accordioned against a layer of bedrock 45 feet below. But as long as you believe a 757 crashed there, right?!


Most, some, about, is irrelevant and is just argumentative. There was, as far as I know and you know, no great effort expended categorizing the remains precisely with regards to final resting place because there was no need to.

Why do you keep lying hooper? The official story tellers are saying 80% was buried and that's the ONLY logically explanation that 95% of a 757 was recovered, yet the photos of the ground debris only shows about 15% of a 757. Do the math hooper.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Yeah because hauling all that dirt away along with the excavated debris and having to separate and dispose the dirt at your facility, instead of conveniently separating it and burying the dirt back at the field you dug it out of, is real cost effective.


Huh?





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join