Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

Huh??

How do youmean?
water is somehow soft, resulting in "big bits" of plane rather than your "9/11 itsy bitsy small bits only"ruling??

you are not making sense now...in your cherry picked scenarios..

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
… they ask for wreckage… it’s shown…

The ONLY wreckage shown to prove a plane was buried was that ONE photo of the engine part the fits in the excavator's bucket, showing how it was planted. Therefore, NO photos have been presented to show a plane was buried there.

reply to post by benoni


I will leave it to you to read today's news on the Air France investigation and then figure out how it is much different from Flight 93.

Originally posted by Tiloke
That's it ignore what you don't want to read...

How can you ignore statements that have never been produced? Please produce statements of the crew digging out 24 cars worth of plane wreckage.

Prove to me that Michelangelo carved the statue known as "David". Prove it, cmon.

Was the statue of David carved in a time period of cameras and camcorders?

You cant ask for ridiculous proofs and state someone is wrong when they can't deliver.

Why? You guys state ridiculous claims like most of a 757 buried itself.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
High speed aircraft accidents, leave little bitty pieces....should be an easy concept to understand.

We just can't understand, regardless of what size the pieces of Flight 93 were allegedly reduced to after is supposedly crashed, is if 95% of the plane was recovered, why can't you produce evidence of where most of this alleged 95% of the plane was before the FBI started picking the place up?

It's like a math equation like this:

x + [you're just going to have to take our word for it] = z

Bunker busting bombs are designed to penetrate deep into the ground.Not a passenger airliner.There should have been debris all over that field.And what about the rocovering the bodies?

reply to post by ATH911


I have already answered you on that question...several times......

Hey swamp...

I think you are intelligent enough to see the parallels i was alluding to...

ie. big planes that crash, even from 33,00 ft , leave large pieces of debris...

Yes, water was involved....but thats like hitting a brick wall from 33,00ft....

Give this some thought...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I have already answered you on that question...several times......

And you've failed to produce evidence to prove your belief...every time.....

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You do know that you cannot argue logically with illogical people correct? Kinda like arguing with North Korea. Gets you nowhere fast.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Tiloke
That's it ignore what you don't want to read...

How can you ignore statements that have never been produced? Please produce statements of the crew digging out 24 cars worth of plane wreckage.

Prove to me that Michelangelo carved the statue known as "David". Prove it, cmon.

Was the statue of David carved in a time period of cameras and camcorders?

ahh here's a good one for you:
A tree falls in the middle of the woods with not a soul around. Does it make a sound?

reply to post by benoni


Like I said earlier, read what they are saying about how the Air France flight impacted the water....then get back to me.

reply to post by ATH911


Now you want me to prove that there wasnt someone sitting there with a scale weighing every piece that came out of the crater? (comments deleted to avoid being penalized)

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by AgentX09

Not a passenger airliner

Pointy object, moving fast, digs into dirt.

There should have been debris all over that field

There was.

And what about the rocovering the bodies?

In a crash like that, you dont recover bodies...you recover pieces. Which, they did.




[edit on 3-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Still havent heard how the debris covered an area of 8 km's!!

Still havent heard how the plane was able to vanish, without hardly a trace...


All the evidence points to a shootdown by missile....

ie.No plane parts of substantial size....contradicting all other crashes in Aviation History...(show me otherwise if you disagree....using a comparable sized plane..)

Initial eyewitnesses reported No plane, no wreckege...no evidence of it even being a crash site.......
This was then subsequently changed by other "eyewitnesses"...for obvious reasons.

For me its simple...
its all a lie.

reply to post by benoni

All the evidence points to a shootdown by missile....

It does? How so? What kind of missile do you think it was? Heat seeker or radar guided?

Initial eyewitnesses reported No plane, no wreckege...no evidence of it even being a crash site.......

Got to throw the BS flag on that statement. The initial statements by those first on the scene say differently.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Eric Peterson, 28, was working in his shop in the Somerset County village of Lambertsville yesterday morning when he heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low

The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end

Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.

Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters.

The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet [long]. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees."

Fox stepped over a seat back. He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects

All first accounts by the people first on the scene of Flight 93's demise.....

posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by benoni

 

Initial eyewitnesses reported No plane, no wreckege...no evidence of it even being a crash site.......

Got to throw the BS flag on that statement. The initial statements by those first on the scene say differently.

Do they? Here are some censored early Fox and NBC news reports. What do they say?

Fox - NBC Rare Footage

No debris on the ground. Nothing. How little debris is visible.



Nothing larger than a phone book.

Nothing there but a hole in the ground.

Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane was there.

No smoke. No fire.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/896efa431ee0.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course later some pieces larger than a phone book did allegedly show up.

reply to post by SPreston


You keep posting that video, but appearantly you havent bothered to actually watch it. The aerial shots, show plenty of pieces and the reporter being interviewed says something that you seem to miss as well. "From where we were" The reporters werent allowed to traipse all over the crash site. They were kept a distance away from the actual impact site and definitely werent allowed into the woods where the pieces you mentioned were found.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Have YOU watched the video? Perhaps you should take your rosy good news sunglasses off first?

These two news reports were broadcast early on and never shown again. The NBC lady states that hundreds of investigators on the ground have found nothing larger than a phone book. How could hundreds of investigators on the ground miss this alleged piece which is a lot bigger than a phone book?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/896efa431ee0.jpg[/atsimg]

In fact a phone book would just about fit one of those windows. This piece must have been brought in later or maybe it was never there and just photographed elsewhere along with the pristine red cleaned and pressed bandana and the flight recorders allegedly dug up from 15 feet deep and 25 feet deep and a few other pieces. How could two small flight recorders essentially the same size and weight have such a huge difference in their alleged burial depth? They were back in the tail which logically would break off and tumble down range; so why would the flight recorders be in the hole in the first place? Logic and deductive reasoning tells me that those flight recorders were never at Shanksville and were photographed somewhere else.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96fb257147f8.gif[/atsimg]

And the Fox reporter was talking to a guy who had been on the ground taking pictures and he saw nothing which you could distinguish a plane from. Try watching the video with an open mind Swampfox, although that would likely be contrary to your orders.