What was the average size of the alleged excavated UA93 debris?

Originally posted by ATH911

Oh, I figured you skeptics knew, because you guys keep saying most of the alleged Flight 93 wreckage was in small pieces. I guess you guys were spreading misinformation. You guys should go correct that from all your debunking websites and youtube videos.

Why do you keep saying "you guys" as though there's some kind of club? I've never made any comment about the size of the debris, although from evidence I've seen most of it does look "small".

But that's a relative term, and to jump from a fairly vague descriptive observation to a completely irrelevant demand for some form of exact (although you don't ever say on what scale) measurement is absurd. What does it prove that nobody knows an exact average size? That all the debris being removed may in fact have been enormous? So what?

What have you proved? That some people on the internet don't know the exact average size of some pieces of a downed plane. This is hardly going to get Bush indicted, is it?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Why do you keep saying "you guys" as though there's some kind of club?

You skeptics see us truthers as a cult/club, and we see you guys as one too.

I've never made any comment about the size of the debris, although from evidence I've seen most of it does look "small"

Is this including the tons and tons of wreckage that reportedly came out of the ground?

What does it prove that nobody knows an exact average size? That all the debris being removed may in fact have been enormous? So what?

It's not so much to prove something, it's to point out that you skeptics should refrain from using crashes like Flight 1771 as comparisons if you don't know what the average size of the alleged buried Flight 93 wreckage is. Of course, you guys shouldn't use 1771 at all because best I can tell, not much of that plane buried and supposedly most of Flight 93 did (officially), so apples and oranges.

.

Any reason why the most technologically advanced country in the world did not bother to reconstruct the alleged commercial aircraft which crashed at Shanksville? Since there are obvious and legitimate questions as to what happened there, would a reconstruction not be the most logical solution in answering these questions? Oh yeah, I forgot, (like the alleged aircraft) they were more interested in burying the facts of that day.

From catapults, to flying upside down, to the cockpit breaking off, to the airplane being buried, to parts flying into the woods, it is tough to keep track of how many times the Shanksville story has been changed by the official liars.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Any reason why the most technologically advanced country in the world did not bother to reconstruct the alleged commercial aircraft which crashed at Shanksville?

They wouldn't reconstruct it if they knew why a plane crash, but all they need to do is show us that 95% recovered 757 wreckage. I mean, that a LOT of wreckage!

From catapults, to flying upside down, to the cockpit breaking off, to the airplane being buried, to parts flying into the woods, it is tough to keep track of how many times the Shanksville story has been changed by the official liars.

And that's why the skeptics try to give the minimal official story, because even they know things don't add up.

Originally posted by ATH911

You skeptics see us truthers as a cult/club, and we see you guys as one too.

I don't see Truthers as a club, except where they self-identify as such. I view the paranoid style of thought as a cultish kind of thinking.

But actually you're wrong anyway. Only certain TM adherents like yourself see sceptics as a club. You have to because it validates your constant need to argue by giving you some kind of metaphorical opposition. And you're wrong in the specific as well because you're making all kinds of assumptions about my views in order to shoehorn me into your argument.

Is this including the tons and tons of wreckage that reportedly came out of the ground?

Yes. I know this may be difficult for you, but notice how lots of small things can add up to quite a large number, and similarly to a significant weight. Also note how I said as far as I could see.

Finally, note how your enquiry is pointless on a number of levels. Personally I don't understand what you're looking for, even though you insist on bracketing me with people who apparently say something about some other flight. I'm not sure why. On a wider level sceptics here are not well qualified to answer your question and it's not one that holds any real relevance. Still less does it make much sense. What does small even mean? It's an entirely relative term.

On a more general level still, I can't see why proving some sceptics wrong on the internet will further your cause.

It's not so much to prove something, it's to point out that you skeptics should refrain from using crashes like Flight 1771 as comparisons if you don't know what the average size of the alleged buried Flight 93 wreckage is. Of course, you guys shouldn't use 1771 at all because best I can tell, not much of that plane buried and supposedly most of Flight 93 did (officially), so apples and oranges.

.

edit on 14-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)

You're putting me in with people with whom I don't necessarily agree, presumably for the reasons outlined above. I think the plane was quite likely shot down. You don't, and that's fine, but don't pretend there are only two ways of seeing this - yours, and "sceptics'"

I don't think they admitted to having any pieces of 93, they found one window from the WTC and a small nose from pentagon, I don't remember any pieces from 93, if so it's probably a portion of a wheel cover and they'll say "see, 0.000001% of a plane."

Originally posted by filosophia
I don't think they admitted to having any pieces of 93, they found one window from the WTC and a small nose from pentagon, I don't remember any pieces from 93, if so it's probably a portion of a wheel cover and they'll say "see, 0.000001% of a plane."

Do you seriously believe this? That what you mention is all the plane debris found?

You are very misinformed.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Any reason why the most technologically advanced country in the world did not bother to reconstruct the alleged commercial aircraft which crashed at Shanksville?

Because it is expensive, time consuming and dangerous. Its not a hobby. It is only done when there is no other alternative and may, in the end, not offer any knowledge regarding the crash.

Since there are obvious and legitimate questions as to what happened there, would a reconstruction not be the most logical solution in answering these questions?

If there actually were legitimate questions, yes. But there aren't.

Oh yeah, I forgot, (like the alleged aircraft) they were more interested in burying the facts of that day.

Yeah, right. That's why its the most investigated criminal act in the history of the USA.

From catapults, to flying upside down, to the cockpit breaking off, to the airplane being buried, to parts flying into the woods, it is tough to keep track of how many times the Shanksville story has been changed by the official liars

Why don't you try? Give us a list, complete with official references, that shows the how the narrative about the events in Shanksville has changed.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't see Truthers as a club, except where they self-identify as such. I view the paranoid style of thought as a cultish kind of thinking.

Funny, I view the denial style of thought of skeptics as a cultish kind of thinking.

And you're wrong in the specific as well because you're making all kinds of assumptions about my views in order to shoehorn me into your argument.

If my questions don't apply to you, then why are you responding to them?

Yes. I know this may be difficult for you, but notice how lots of small things can add up to quite a large number, and similarly to a significant weight. Also note how I said as far as I could see.

Can you show me this unearthed small debris you speak of?

Finally, note how your enquiry is pointless on a number of levels. Personally I don't understand what you're looking for

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to explain it to you?!

What does small even mean? It's an entirely relative term.

You just answered it was small, so apparently you know what it means.

On a more general level still, I can't see why proving some sceptics wrong on the internet will further your cause.

Why do you care?

You're putting me in with people with whom I don't necessarily agree

Then stop replying. Sheesh.

Show me some SMALL debris! Show me it!

If you can't then you must not understand 9/11s!!!!

This is literally the level you have sunk to. Well done, case closed. I imagine the indictment of Bush will happen this afternoon?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Show me some SMALL debris! Show me it!

If you can't then you must not understand 9/11s!!!!

This is literally the level you have sunk to. Well done, case closed. I imagine the indictment of Bush will happen this afternoon?

Mr. Troll, I simply asked if you can show me the "small" pieces of excavated debris you speak of. Trying to attack me because you can't show what asked for just makes you look silly.

reply to post by ATH911


Weird. To me a troll is someone who comes on a website repeatedly screaming and demanding evidence from people and then unilaterally declaring some kind of 'victory' when they don't get what they want.

Meanwhile the rest of the world goes about its business, blissfully unaware of your "damning evidence". Because it doesn't exist.