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

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper
 

Nice side-stepping all my questions, hooper.

You're a real pro at that!


I would like to try an answer some of your "questions" but they have to have some basis in fact and reality. I can't answer your opinions about photos you found on the internet.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Worthless? Yes. Almost as worthless as your response.

But I digress...



That debris wouldnt have been in the hole that was dug.


How do you know this? Do you not see pieces of debris caked in dirt?



They treated this as a crime scene...see above video I posted.


It was a site where 44 of your fellow Americans were murdered. I know this fact escapes many of you truthers, but it happened nonetheless.



They wouldnt have went through what was being dug up to then dispose of pieces. They would have transported everything to a lab, where it was then combed through with a fine comb.


You are making an unsubstantiated assumption, here. How do you know these pieces were being disposed of? How do you know they weren't being separated from remains?



They supposedly found bone fragments (slivers) that they tested DNA through.


They did.



They sure wouldnt have disposed of possible slivers in the same container as metal and such.


They didn't. They actually went through the crash scene "with a fine comb," as you suggested they should have earlier. In fact, the mere purpose of placing debris in such bins was to separate it from the human remains, as finding remains of individuals that had been crushed to pieces and burnt was quite arduous, as I'm sure you could imagine. Actually, there is a pretty good article about this fact here.

edit on 18-12-2010 by Judge_Holden because: misspelling



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



They wouldnt have went through what was being dug up to then dispose of pieces. They would have transported everything to a lab, where it was then combed through with a fine comb.


Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



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?




Yea , me too ...
duh ...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 

Didn't you admit that they probably would not have just thrown all the remains in one big pile so that you can see it in an aerial photo?

I said not necessarily.

Here's a the realistic scenarios I can think of:
1) They couldn't process the scooped-out debris fast enough, so they started putting it in piles off to the side so the processor can get to it.
2) They were able to process each scoop fast enough, but piled the plane debris up like they piled the dirt up until they were done excavating and processing.
3) After processing each scoop, they put the plane debris in large containers.

In any of those scenarios, the photos would have shown large amounts of plane debris near the excavation.

Your scenario:

- After processing each scoop, they hauled away tons and tons of plane debris, you just couldn't tell.


Please post the official government report that precisely delineates between airplane debris recovered from embeddment site and the material that was not. Been waiting.

If that's what you require before believing something, show me an "official report" that proves all the passengers were identified.


Please elaborate on the rigourous training the Ambassadors recieved

The news interviewed on of the directors of the Memorial. She said the volunteer Ambassadors have to go through a "rigorous" training before they volunteer. I should you video of what the Ambassadors are saying to the tourists. They even got a story packet they follow. Are you saying they are just making all that up?



Then what % of a 757 do you see lying on top of the ground in all the photos before the cleanup started?

71.6543568932%

So 72%. That would mean 23% of the 757 was "embedded." Please show me you best evidence that amount came out of the ground.
edit on 18-12-2010 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 

Jesus Christ, you just answered your own question.

Go back and read what you just posted. Sheesh.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.

hooper, stop lying.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
They actually went through the crash scene "with a fine comb," as you suggested they should have earlier. In fact, the mere purpose of placing debris in such bins was to separate it from the human remains

What bins? Please show me these bins near the processing next to the excavation full of plane debris.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 



They wouldnt have went through what was being dug up to then dispose of pieces. They would have transported everything to a lab, where it was then combed through with a fine comb.


Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.


No...post after post you either ignore his point or dont comprehend it.
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...as claimed by the 9/11 report, then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.

You see...us truthers as you call us, only have questions. We often have different questions. Some of us believe certain things we are being told, others believe different things. We dont claim to know,we just claim to have more common sense and logic than what the 9/11 report says.
You 'trusters' or 'believers' dont know what you believe. Most dont even know what theyre defending. They state different things.

Like some of you claim the plane in PA disintegrated, while others claim that it buried itself and was dug it up. But none of you offer logical answers as to why there was 2 different crash sites miles apart, and luggage was found scattered for miles.

None of you can answer why no fires or smoke were seen by news crews and reported on, when a PLANE CRASHED.

None of you can answer how a plane can bury itself. 90% of it.

None of you can answer where the wing imprints are on the ground from crashing...for those that dont believe it disintegrated.

Instead, there is debate of what debris filled up a garbage bin....where it came from.
Was it dug up or was it collected from around the crash.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...as claimed by the 9/11 report, then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.

The specific numbers were 80% of the 757 being dug up out of the ground and 95% of the plane recovered in total.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by DIDtm
He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...as claimed by the 9/11 report, then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.
Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.

The specific numbers were 80% of the 757 being dug up out of the ground and 95% of the plane recovered in total.


Thank you for correcting me.
Although it doesnt matter since since the official numbers were grabbed out thin air anyway.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Your scenario:

- After processing each scoop, they hauled away tons and tons of plane debris, you just couldn't tell.


Well, you could tell, but not if your whole world is reduced to what photos you can find on the internet. Really, there is a reality beyond the internet. It is out there. Plenty of people were involved in the recovery. Ever try to ask any of them? Ever try and contact the FBI and ask about the process? If you want the "truth" then you may have to move away from your keyboard.

Again, it all comes down to your own personal interpretation of what you think you can and cannot see in a handful of photos you found on the internet.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Not according to ATH911, they should have just been throwing everything into one big pile so he could see it later on in the aerial photos.

hooper, stop lying.


Just callin' them as I see'em. You think there should be a pile of debris big enough to be visible from an aerial photo, not me.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



No...post after post you either ignore his point or dont comprehend it.

I am going with comprehend.

He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...

No he's not. Now I think the comprehension problem is on your end.

as claimed by the 9/11 report,

Which 9/11 report and where in that report?

then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.

Why? Where does it say that "here is a photo of all the plane debris recovered in Shanksville"? It is a photo of a dumpster with plane wreckage - you are assuming or implying that it is the final amount. Invalid assumption.

Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.

Again, please point out in the "report" wherein they officially said that the plane did not disintegrate.

You see...us truthers as you call us, only have questions.

Thats because you choose to ignore the answers.

We often have different questions.

Not every statement that ends with a question mark, is in fact, a question.

Like some of you claim the plane in PA disintegrated, while others claim that it buried itself and was dug it up. But none of you offer logical answers as to why there was 2 different crash sites miles apart, and luggage was found scattered for miles.

Really? Luggage sacttered for miles? Actual luggage? Where did you pick up that little gem?

None of you can answer why no fires or smoke were seen by news crews and reported on, when a PLANE CRASHED.

Good Lord, there are photos -on the internet - showing the woods adjacent to the impact site smoldering.

None of you can answer how a plane can bury itself. 90% of it.

Planes don't bury themselves. Planes hit the ground hard and then they break apart and the pieces....well, why even bother. If you can't understand basic things like impact then there is no use in trying to explain. Its like trying to explain why something is wet because it fell in the water.

None of you can answer where the wing imprints are on the ground from crashing...for those that dont believe it disintegrated.

The imprints on the ground are....on the ground.

Instead, there is debate of what debris filled up a garbage bin....where it came from.
Was it dug up or was it collected from around the crash

Believe it or not that is the theme of the OP.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 



No...post after post you either ignore his point or dont comprehend it.

I am going with comprehend.

Im going to agree with you.


He is stating that if in fact 90%+ of the plane was dug up from being buried...

No he's not. Now I think the comprehension problem is on your end.

Here is a quote from him stating exactly that. Can be found on page 1 of this thread.




Yes it's humorous because the official story says 95% of Flight 93 was recovered and most of that recovered debris was supposedly hidden in the ground, so if tons of plane debris *didn't* come out of that ground, then that means the official claim that 95% of the plane was recovered was a lie. Don't you agree?

Who's got the comprehension problem again?

then there would be much more debris in that dumpster (if in fact you side with fellow trusters like Judge) that that particular bin contained debris that was dug up.

Why? Where does it say that "here is a photo of all the plane debris recovered in Shanksville"? It is a photo of a dumpster with plane wreckage - you are assuming or implying that it is the final amount. Invalid assumption.

Fair enough, but Im refuting that number anyway. I dont think 80% of the plane buried itself.


Because after all, according to the report, the plane DID NOT disintegrate (which fellow trusters believe it did) and they did in fact, find 90% of the plane.

Again, please point out in the "report" wherein they officially said that the plane did not disintegrate.

Did they or did they not state that 95% of the plane was recovered in total?
ATH911, please give link to this...



You see...us truthers as you call us, only have questions.

Thats because you choose to ignore the answers.

Logical people will never accept illogical answers.


We often have different questions.

Not every statement that ends with a question mark, is in fact, a question.

Not sure where you going with this, but unless surrounded by quotations, the rules of grammar would say differently.


Like some of you claim the plane in PA disintegrated, while others claim that it buried itself and was dug it up. But none of you offer logical answers as to why there was 2 different crash sites miles apart, and luggage was found scattered for miles.

Really? Luggage sacttered for miles? Actual luggage? Where did you pick up that little gem?

Ill try to find the article(s) regarding the luggage, but here is a link to descriptions of debris from Flight 93 found 8 miles away.
www.september11news.com...


None of you can answer why no fires or smoke were seen by news crews and reported on, when a PLANE CRASHED.

Good Lord, there are photos -on the internet - showing the woods adjacent to the impact site smoldering.

Again...a video thats been posted in this forum already by me, that you states entirely differently.



None of you can answer how a plane can bury itself. 90% of it.

Planes don't bury themselves. Planes hit the ground hard and then they break apart and the pieces....well, why even bother. If you can't understand basic things like impact then there is no use in trying to explain. Its like trying to explain why something is wet because it fell in the water.

I can understand that, but its being claimed that 95% of the plane was recovered.
You might want to discuss with your fellow believer, hooper.
Besides, thats what the OP was saying...planes DONT bury themselves.



None of you can answer where the wing imprints are on the ground from crashing...for those that dont believe it disintegrated.

The imprints on the ground are....on the ground.

No..they're not.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, you could tell...

How?


Again, it all comes down to your own personal interpretation of what you think you can and cannot see in a handful of photos you found on the internet.

I notice that's how you respond with you have no evidence.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Ididn't read back through 4 pages of yes it did / no it didn't. I think this thread has been done before word for word.
however: I do remember seeing aerial pics of a slightly blackened smoking hole with a vshaped trench cut through it ..AND"some from the same field years earlier with the same hole and trench well before 9/11.
old thread with plenty of pics.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just callin' them as I see'em. You think there should be a pile of debris big enough to be visible from an aerial photo, not me.

You moved your goal post a little.

But yes, if they dug out tons and tons of debris and they had a photographer on scene, helicopters filming from the air, and the media on the outskirts, it should be very apparent they did extract that amount of plane debris.

Your evidence they did is... what again?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Really? Luggage sacttered for miles? Actual luggage? Where did you pick up that little gem?

I'd like to know where was all the luggage that should have been at the scene?!


Good Lord, there are photos -on the internet - showing the woods adjacent to the impact site smoldering.

Yes, that caught on fire from the cockpit section. Wait, how does that happen?!


Planes don't bury themselves. Planes hit the ground hard and then they break apart and the pieces....well, why even bother.

Um, yoohoo?...


I didn't see a single piece of airplane anywhere... Little could be found. Because of the reclaimed strip mine, the ground was softer than other surrounding areas. The plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground.
(Lisa Beamer, Let's Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage, July 2002, p. 231)


Where do you think Mrs. Beamer got such a tale?


If you can't understand basic things like impact then there is no use in trying to explain.

I'm glad you don't believe in the official story either!



The imprints on the ground are....on the ground.

Have you ever seen a plane crash leave wing imprints in the ground before, hooper? I sure haven't.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


AWE SHUCKS
You ruined my fun 46ACE.
I was going to wait for a response from him before I posted that.

BTW...It hasnt been 4 pages of YES its was/ NO it wasn't.

But, everything has been said before, I am sure.





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join