Archive of reports inferring most of UA93 was buried

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Well, first all you need to do is search THIS WEBSITE. There is an article on ATS about Flight 93 evidence and Iron Mountain facility.

Please show me any evidence that the flight 93 parts and debris are in Iron Mountain.

Well it is pretty obvious now that you really have no interest in the "truth" since you can't even be bothered to look something up on the very webiste that you are on. Pretty pathetic, actually.

The debris is not in Iron Mountain. You figure it out.

Originally posted by hooper
Well it is pretty obvious now that you really have no interest in the "truth" since you can't even be bothered to look something up on the very webiste that you are on. Pretty pathetic, actually.

Thanks again for showing you cannot post evidence.

So sad how i can post evidence but you cannot.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by hooper

And why bother with photos?

reply to post by ATH911


Thank you for proving my point. Why bother? Just go looking for some lame excuse to dismiss the obvious.

"Here is a photo of the crash site and the wreckage"

"Not enough wreckage - obviously staged"

Why bother?

reply to post by hooper

No, I was laughing at you seeming to think written accounts are more solid evidence than photos!

But as to your thinking we'll just casts photos you post as proof, try us.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

No, I was laughing at you seeming to think written accounts are more solid evidence than photos!

Well, they could be, you would have to be real specific. I really don't know what you are talking about.

And are you using the word "evidence" like in "rules of evidence" or are you using the term generally?

reply to post by hooper

Both hooper, both.

Now I'm curious, after I posted the dozens and dozens of claims by the news, Flight 93 memorial Ambassadors, and respected author writing about the official Flight 93 crash story that ALL SAY that most of UA93 buried after it crash, do you finally concede that is the official story (or unofficial official story for you)?

reply to post by ATH911


As I have stated many times, there is no doubt that some of the plane embedded into the ground, some of it did not. You are obsessed with cornering people into saying most so you can jump out and yell "PROVE IT" or "IMPOSSIBLE" or the best one - why didn't the press report it (even though you usually back up that claim by citing all the press reports).

Nobody, in all your citations, was speaking technically or analytically. They were making general descritptions from which you want to derive very specific charateristics.

Originally posted by hooper
As I have stated many times, there is no doubt that some of the plane embedded into the ground, some of it did not. You are obsessed with cornering people into saying most so you can jump out and yell "PROVE IT" or "IMPOSSIBLE"...

Is that why you still deny the official story is most of the plane buried, because you know there is hardly any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim?

Nobody, in all your citations, was speaking technically or analytically. They were making general descritptions from which you want to derive very specific charateristics.

No, three stated specific claims of how much buried (2/3, 80%, 92%).

Will you at least concede that all of those reports I posted in the OP infer that most of UA93 buried?

or the best one - why didn't the press report it (even though you usually back up that claim by citing all the press reports).

No, the best one is when you keep lying about what I said. I've never said the media never ever reported that most of the plane buried. I've said the media never reported *when* most of the plane was supposedly found buried (see the first paragraph of that thread). But everyone knows you are a well-known liar.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by ATH911]

Is that why you still deny the official story is most of the plane buried, because you know there is hardly any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim?

Then why do you keep posting proof that you claim backs up that statement, unless of course, you think everyone you quote is wrong?

No, three stated specific claims of how much buried (2/3, 80%, 92%).

Yeah, those are real specific.

Will you at least concede that all of those reports I posted in the OP infer that most of UA93 buried?

Those are not "reports". They are quotes from newspaper articles. Nobody was filing a "report". Using that term lends an air of officially vetted information - there was no such thing.

No, the best one is when you keep lying about what I said. I've never said the media never ever reported that most of the plane buried. I've said the media never reported *when* most of the plane was supposedly found buried (see the first paragraph of that thread). But everyone knows you are a well-known liar.

Just to play along, when was the plane found to be "mostly" buried? I mean that couldn't have been determined all at once, that had to be something that was concluded well into or well after the recovery process. It wouldn't be some "eureka" moment at the crash site. So what is your baseline for claiming that the press didn't report it?

Originally posted by hooper
Then why do you keep posting proof that you claim backs up that statement, unless of course, you think everyone you quote is wrong?

You seem to think there are all wrong too!

Yeah, those are real specific.

But what's still their common themes?

Those are not "reports". They are quotes from newspaper articles.

So the reporters, Ambassadors, and authors like Lisa Beamer are all just making the same # up?

How in the world did they ALL come to say the same thing, that most of the plane buried? Where did they ALL get that notion?

Just to play along, when was the plane found to be "mostly" buried? I mean that couldn't have been determined all at once, that had to be something that was concluded well into or well after the recovery process. It wouldn't be some "eureka" moment at the crash site. So what is your baseline for claiming that the press didn't report it?

They started digging between 9/13 and 9/16-17. At least by their last day of digging, they would have realized this.

So lets just say that they realized on their last day of digging (well just say 9/17 to be conservative), that most of UA93 had been buried underground, why didn't the media report on that day, or 9/18 that most of the plane had buried?

And why not on the previous days when the FBI would have started noticing the large amounts of wreckage being unearthed by them (9/13-9/16) that the media didn't start reporting about large amounts of UA93's wreckage was being unearthed?

The media reported about one of the engines being unearthed the day after it supposedly happened, why did they stop there?

reply to post by ATH911

And why not on the previous days when the FBI would have started noticing the large amounts of wreckage being unearthed by them (9/13-9/16) that the media didn't start reporting about large amounts of UA93's wreckage was being unearthed?

The media reported about one of the engines being unearthed the day after it supposedly happened, why did they stop there?

Again, we have to put all this into the context of the time period. Like I mentioned before, in that time frame they were still searching for possible survivors at ground zero, the impending invasion of Afghanistan, the closing the stock market for the longest period in US history, all the survivor stories from DC and NYC, international reaction to 911 and the list goes on and on.

As you stated, they reported when the engine section was found and when the recorders were found. So what do you start reporting? Everytime another piece of metal is dug up? There was a rational and reasonable editorial decision made with regard to the recovery and the rest of the events that were unfolding. You are trying to read into that rational decision some evidence of a nefarious cover up. There is nothing there.

Originally posted by hooper
Again, we have to put all this into the context of the time period. Like I mentioned before, in that time frame they were still searching for possible survivors at ground zero, the impending invasion of Afghanistan, the closing the stock market for the longest period in US history, all the survivor stories from DC and NYC, international reaction to 911 and the list goes on and on.

So what you are saying is that there was so many more important and newsworthy things to report about that both the major news media and the itty-bitty local news media didn't find it important enough to even squeeze in quick sentence in all their many articles about 9/11 they were posting everyday after that most of a 757 and the passenger remains were buried deep underground, something that was unprecedented in aviation history? Seriously hopper, you really believe this?

As you stated, they reported when the engine section was found and when the recorders were found. So what do you start reporting? Everytime another piece of metal is dug up?

Trying to convolute things again hooper? Never did I suggest the media should have reported when ever single piece of wreckage was supposedly dug up. But they did manage to squeeze in that one of the engines was dug up, so why couldn't they have squeezed in the more important and amazing news that most of the 757, along with its passengers, had been buried???

reply to post by hooper

If 93 had crashed there and the plane was in the ...(er I need to tighten my tin foil hat to say this hold on a min...OK) soft ground whole or mostly so,and parts were actually being dug up,there would be a photographer present,either GVT or press,prob both.Doubt that?Film could be compiled and a 'special' broadcast later.There's money to be made as I'm sure if a film showing this came out it would be watched,eh?Try again.

reply to post by ATH911

So what you are saying is that there was so many more important and newsworthy things to report about that both the major news media and the itty-bitty local news media didn't find it important enough to even squeeze in quick sentence in all their many articles about 9/11 they were posting everyday after that most of a 757 and the passenger remains were buried deep underground, something that was unprecedented in aviation history? Seriously hopper, you really believe this?

First, I don't know that parts of plane involved in a crash being embedded in the ground is "unprecedented". Where are you getting that? Are you suggesting that this was the first time in history that pieces of plane that crashed in soil were found embedded in the soil? Not to mention that the concept that pieces of an obejct that collided with the ground at 580mph may have become embedded in the ground would really qualify as "unprecedented". Sounds more like common knowledge. Second, where are you getting this thing about the passengers being "buried"? Or are you again assuming that based on these newspaper interviews with people that were not on the site?

And just one more note - almost everything else being reported on was "unprecendented".

Trying to convolute things again hooper? Never did I suggest the media should have reported when ever single piece of wreckage was supposedly dug up. But they did manage to squeeze in that one of the engines was dug up, so why couldn't they have squeezed in the more important and amazing news that most of the 757, along with its passengers, had been buried???

Just to clarify something - do you think that the plane was "buried" like a unit with the passengers inside? Is that your understanding? Do you think they were digging up whole sections of the fuselage and carry on luggage came rolling out?

reply to post by trueforger


Yes, because we sure know how successful all those other films showing the recovery of human remains are. Was there a photographer there from the press - no - otherwise we would all being looking at the photos right now. From the Gov't - maybe, but they will probably never release the photos in our life times or the life times of the loved ones of the victims.

Originally posted by hooper
First, I don't know that parts of plane involved in a crash being embedded in the ground is "unprecedented". Where are you getting that? Are you suggesting that this was the first time in history that pieces of plane that crashed in soil were found embedded in the soil?

Good ol' hooper, always trying to obfuscate what I said. Typical behavior of a troll. You know very well I wrote "most of a 757 and the passenger remains were buried deep underground."

Second, where are you getting this thing about the passengers being "buried"?

Maybe you're not a troll after all, but you just have a very low IQ. Let's test it. If most of a plane had buried and no bodies were spotted above ground, where's the most likely place most of the passenger remains would be?

Or are you again assuming that based on these newspaper interviews with people that were not on the site?

I asked before and not sure you answered it (typical of you), where did all those different news agencies, the ambassadors, and book authors, including Lisa Beamer, get the notion that most of UA93 buried?

And just one more note - almost everything else being reported on was "unprecendented".

Terrorist attack happened on US soil? Yes
Plane crashes on US soil? Yes
Commercial plane mostly buries after crashes? Never before

Just to clarify something - do you think that the plane was "buried" like a unit with the passengers inside? Is that your understanding? Do you think they were digging up whole sections of the fuselage and carry on luggage came rolling out?

Typical trolling/lying behavior by you. Trying to make it look like I'm suggesting absurd things. You know very well I never said or suggesting anything of the like.

Let's see if you can start acting mature and stop being a troll from now on (I won't hold my breathe).

reply to post by ATH911

Terrorist attack happened on US soil? Yes
Plane crashes on US soil? Yes
Commercial plane mostly buries after crashes? Never before

So September of 2001 was just a typical news period, except for plane crashing into the ground and pieces of the plane being found in the ground. You have lost touch with reality.

Please, no one post to Hooper untill he can post any kind of actual evidence to what he claims. Specailly that 95% of flight 93 was recovered and is in storage.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by REMISNE]

And another thing...If flight 93 impacted soft ground and it was buried by said impact,the earth would be mighty disturbed in a very artificial way.Settling would be a constant occurrance,even to this day.And the place would reek of kerosene which,being lighter than water and earth,would bubble up.Hmmm