Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

Skeptics are claiming the reason you don't see much plane debris at the Shanksville site even though the FBI claimed they eventually recovered 95% of the plane was because most of the plane had buried in the ground:

However the evidence produced so far in the 10 long years since 9/11 to support this claim is severely lacking, so the most obvious conclusion is that the very few photos of parts allegedly unearthed were staged and nothing was really buried in the ground. The claim was just made up to offer an explanation as to why there's hardly any debris left after the Boeing 757 supposedly crashed there.

Think of it logically, instead of the conspirators having to haul about 60 tons or so of 757 wreckage to the scene to plant, creating more risk for them, they just had to say most of the plane got buried in that "soft reclaimed stripmine" so they wouldn't have to bring much debris to stage and they would never have to show all that alleged buried debris. It was a good plan since it fooled most of the world (and all of the skeptics).

 

Evidence is only lacking for those that refuse to look to the source.

 

You have evidence from the source to prove most a of 757 was in the ground? Sweet! Let's see what you got. We've only been waiting for 10 long years.

 

The direct source has been posted on this board numerous times. Some are to married their agenda to contact the people who were there.

 

I guess the alternative theory is that a 5th plane was hijacked that day? It literally never ends with these people. I'm glad they don't vote.

 

Are these the people you claimed to have contacted before?

 

I know, they believe most of a 757 buried, but can't prove it. I'm with you on being glad they don't vote. They probably don't even know how to vote if they can't even prove most of a huge plane like a 757 buried in the ground, especially with all those people and media fixed on the crater from the day of the alleged crashed until the end of the clean up.

 

The direct source has been posted on this board numerous times.

 

I don't see the "bouncing engine" in that simulation. Did you miss that?

 

This thread gets the Sisyphus seal of approval.

 

I think that was in the moving goalpost gif.

 

Undisputed: Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

 

Only if you ignore the fact that investigators recovered, as you say, about 95% of the plane. Guess where they got most of it? In the hole.

You, of course, claim -- without evidence -- that investigators staged the whole thing and are lying about where they found the plane.

So who should we believe: the people who actually went to the site and spent months digging up the wreckage, and have the wreckage to show for it?

Or you, who simply asserts that the investigators are lying?

Tough choice. Not.

 

Undisputed: You have absolutely no evidence the plane was planted in Shanksville, yet you keep starting this same topic over and over expecting a different outcome.

You're just trolling under the auspices of actually have a point or evidence. Neither of which you have.

 

Evidence?

The evidence is that the evidence is severely lacking for that claim.

Then show me all that debris!

 

Why?...It wouldn't make a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit of difference

 

So, just to be clear, are you saying all of the exhibits and info on this page are faked?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_93

 

That's what people with no evidence say.

 

This thread is only concerned about the claim that most of Flight 93 had buried. Do any of the exhibits on that page provide significant evidence to support this claim?

 

No it's what people who have had dealings with truthers,and their inability toaccept facts

 

Well try me then, show me the facts.

 

What are your criteria for said 'evidence'?

 

Videos, photos, interviews, news reports, or anything else you think would prove the claim.

 

How about direct testimony, photographs and video from people who worked the crash site?

 

Argument by assumption: a logical fallacy.