Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

reply to post by ATH911


So where are you going with this? There are a variety of non-official comments with regards to what happened to the plane after impact. What is there to argue about?

Can you agree that a certain amount of the plane was embedded in the ground and certain percentage was aggregated with the ejacta from the crater? If so, then it is only a matter of ratios. To what end would anybody investigating the scene make very specific notes? There really wasn't a lot of mystery to what physically happened to the aircraft. The cause of the crash was known.

Originally posted by hooper
To what end would anybody investigating the scene make very specific notes? There really wasn't a lot of mystery to what physically happened to the aircraft. The cause of the crash was known.

Witness the complete destruction of logic that hooper has managed to effect.

He's trying to claim that it wasn't worth a detailed investigation because they knew why the alleged plane crashed.

How many serious investigators turn up to a crash site, presume they know what happened and then don't do a detailed investigation?

hooper, what you are asking everyone to believe is ridiculous.

reply to post by tezzajw


Well, if an investigator shows up at a crash and there are 600 eyewitnesses and video recording of the two planes crashing in mid-air, do you think it would be incompetent for the investigator to not bother with a structural recreation to determine what caused the planes to crash? Of course not, but it would be incompetent to not try and find out why they were involved in a mid-air collision.

What could have possibly been gained from an archealogical dig for the remains of the plane and passengers, except for disavowing the paranoid rantings of a few fringe elements and dragging out an already painful process. Besides, if you are already in a postition were you think the government did it, why waste time using the government to gather information that will be summarily dismissed as being the fruit of a poison tree?

reply to post by ATH911


Wow for all that work with grammar and definitions, its quite funny you forgot a few other little nuances of speaking.

Ever heard of someone say, I saw a car slam INTO a lamp post? Or a car plowed INTO a wall? Or crashed INTO a tree? Or even better, one car crashed INTO another car? Did that car actually GO INTO a car, like inside it? Or did it just crash INTO its side? A guy crashes his bike into a wall.

And the Stundie Award goes to.............

It is quite telling you have no clue what you are talking about, but hey, you do a darn good job of doing a whole lot of it.

I just love your incredulity about how a plane that nosedives into the ground isnt suppose to "bury" parts of it in the resultant crater. It amazes me how you choose voluntarily to ignore other facts about how it is possible. Like meteors that impact the earth, for example.

And again we have the typical whining, moaning, and groaning about the "exact amount" of the aircraft debris that got itself buried. And my question to all this is SO WHAT? This is so typical of you and many other in the "truther" world of nitpicking the most insignificant details and then trying to hammer it to death with incredulity and illogical questions, thinking if you manage to somehow destroy this, it will bring everything else down. Its all you are doing now. As if even you do get your mythical answer as to the exact .000000001% of the amount "buried", you still will not accept it. I know how you operate and I know how you will respond. So what is the point?

Originally posted by hooper
Well, if an investigator shows up at a crash and there are 600 eyewitnesses and video recording of the two planes crashing in mid-air, do you think it would be incompetent for the investigator to not bother with a structural recreation to determine what caused the planes to crash? Of course not, but it would be incompetent to not try and find out why they were involved in a mid-air collision.

Completely off topic and pointless speculation. Stick with Shanksville, hooper. I don't entertain off-topic rants.

Originally posted by hooper
What could have possibly been gained from an archealogical dig for the remains of the plane and passengers, except for disavowing the paranoid rantings of a few fringe elements and dragging out an already painful process.

Evidence to investigate the alleged crash could have been gained.

Originally posted by hooper
Besides, if you are already in a postition were you think the government did it, why waste time using the government to gather information that will be summarily dismissed as being the fruit of a poison tree?

Do you always lose track of your own argument in this manner?

In your previous post, you claimed that it wasn't worth doing a detailed investigation of the alleged Shanksville crash site because they already knew what happened.

That's one of the silliest abuses of logic that I have read here this week.

reply to post by hooper

Do you finally concede that I was right that the official story is most of Flight 93 was buried?

And I never said no part of a plane would bury itself if crashed into a field. I know some parts would bury. If most did, show me the evidence.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ever heard of someone say, I saw a car slam INTO a lamp post? Or a car plowed INTO a wall? Or crashed INTO a tree? Or even better, one car crashed INTO another car? Did that car actually GO INTO a car, like inside it? Or did it just crash INTO its side? A guy crashes his bike into a wall.

And the Stundie Award goes to.............

It goes to you again. They are saying the plane "went into" the ground, not the plane "crashed into" the ground and that one male ambassador even said the plane "literally" went into the ground because of "where the plane hit the ground," meaning because the plane hit the "soft" ground as the official story states.

It is quite telling you have no clue what you are talking about, but hey, you do a darn good job of doing a whole lot of it.

Um, did you not see all those news reports well after 9/11 that said Flight 93:

"burrowed into the ground"
"digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy"
"tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it."
"the ground that swallowed their loved"
"was swallowed up by the earth."
"burrowed into a secluded field"
"the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft and closed up"
"The fuselage had burrowed so far into the earth"
"The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage. "

Are all those language "nuances" too?

I just love your incredulity about how a plane that nosedives into the ground isnt suppose to "bury" parts of it in the resultant crater.

Where have I ever said plane parts wouldn't bury from a crash into a field?

It amazes me how you choose voluntarily to ignore other facts about how it is possible. Like meteors that impact the earth, for example.

Where did I say it was impossible that some parts would bury?

And again we have the typical whining, moaning, and groaning about the "exact amount" of the aircraft debris that got itself buried. And my question to all this is SO WHAT?... So what is the point?

I'll give you a hint, how much of the plane did the FBI said they recovered?

reply to post by tezzajw


I was making two different and distinct points, hence the use of the word "besides".

The problem is clear - you keeping asking for information that is irrelevant to all but the microscopic group who still do not believe a plane crashed at Shanksville. Ironically, the same group that is calling for more information from the government has made it abundantly clear that they do no believe the government.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

Do you finally concede that I was right that the official story is most of Flight 93 was buried?

And I never said no part of a plane would bury itself if crashed into a field. I know some parts would bury. If most did, show me the evidence.

Still haven't seen this official story. Where is it? When will you post a copy? I am dying to read it.

Why can't you just say - "I've looked at a number of quotes from locals and in the press and it seems that they think a lot of the plane became embedded at or near the impact point. I am curious about how much of the plane acted this way".

But, no, you have this goal of calling people liars for whatever reason. So you will obviously persist in promoting the patently false notion that there is an official document somewhere that speaks precisely to the ratio of plane debris that was embedded at the site. Keep up the bad work!

reply to post by hooper

Stop lying hooper.

It ruins any spec of credibility you have left.

So skeptics, now that I showed you lots of media articles reporting well after 9/11 that most of Flight 93 had buried itself, why didn't the media report it on the day or day after when most of the plane was supposedly found underground when investigators at the site excavated the ground and realized what they found?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911
So skeptics, now that I showed you lots of media articles reporting well after 9/11 that most of Flight 93 had buried itself, why didn't the media report it on the day or day after when most of the plane was supposedly found underground when investigators at the site excavated the ground and realized what they found?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ATH911]

Well, you can either think that there was a grand nefarious conspiracy among the media to "hide" the information or consider that there were more than a few other things to cover on 9/11 and 9/12. Just for instance, the missing thousands of people from the WTC. Can you imagine interrupting a story about someone missing their spouse or parent to tell people that out in Shanksville, Pa investigators found that some pieces of the plane were in the ground? Does that sound realistic or professional?

Originally posted by hooper
Well, you can either think that there was a grand nefarious conspiracy among the media to "hide" the information

Where did I ever suggest that? I love how skeptics love to insinuate things.

or consider that there were more than a few other things to cover on 9/11 and 9/12. Just for instance, the missing thousands of people from the WTC. Can you imagine interrupting a story about someone missing their spouse or parent to tell people that out in Shanksville, Pa investigators found that some pieces of the plane were in the ground? Does that sound realistic or professional?

[SNiP]

Like when the CNN switched live to Jamie McIntyre reporting that from his view it didn't look like a plane crashed into the Pentagon?

Please, PLEASE tell me you are joking!

Oh and btw, it would have been on 9/13 or 9/14 that the FBI would have realized most of Flight 93 was buried, ya know, when thy started their excavation of the crater and they wouldn't have reported that just "some pieces" of the plane were found in the ground, but MOST OF THE FRIGGIN PLANE ALONG WITH MOST OF THE PASSENGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Realistic and professional.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ATH911]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Civility and decorum are expected
Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by ATH911


Wherw did you suggest that????? ITS YOUR OP!!! It is the theme of the thread!!

You are seriously disconnected.

reply to post by hooper

Um, who was telling the media what happened at the alleged crash site?

I don't think the media was doing the excavation.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

Um, who was telling the media what happened at the alleged crash site?

I don't think the media was doing the excavation.

I thought you said the media didn't report on it?? Now you are saying the media did report on it. Are you asking why no one in the media ever used the words "most" or "bulk" or "majority" when describing the amount of plane material found during the excavation? Is that the "bulk" of your conspiracy?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

Um, who was telling the media what happened at the alleged crash site?

I don't think the media was doing the excavation.

I thought you said the media didn't report on it?? Now you are saying the media did report on it. Are you asking why no one in the media ever used the words "most" or "bulk" or "majority" when describing the amount of plane material found during the excavation? Is that the "bulk" of your conspiracy?

Uh, no.

reply to post by ATH911

Why didn't the news media report it when most of Flight 93, that had 44 passengers inside it, was supposedly found buried deep underground when it was previously thought that most of the plane had disintegrated?

You tell me. Where did you get the part about "most" (51%?, 80%?) was found buried "deep" underground? Again - to try to make the case that there is a nefariuos cover up and conspiracy based on YOUR interpretation of events is pretty much the defintion of delusion.

reply to post by hooper

Talk about seriously disconnected.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

Talk about seriously disconnected.

So to sum this up, you are trying to argue that the "official claim" that the plane was buried under the crater is a lie because if it had been true then the media would have reported it, but when pushed to show this "official claim" most of what you refer to comes from the media, and add to that no official sources has definitievly described the ratio of plane remains and how they were dispursed. You like to cite the volunteer Ambassadors at the memorial site until you find that the only way to give their words weight to your argument is to actually ignore what they are saying or claim that they misspoke.