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

Discussion in '9/11' started by suede, Sep 28, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Answer the question.

    Are you saying all of the exhibits and info on this page are faked?
     
  2. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Truthers are claiming the reason you don't see much plane debris at the Shanksville site even though the FBI stated that they eventually recovered 95% of the plane was because most of the plane debris had been planted.

    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 claim was just made up to further their agenda.

    Think of it logically, why would conspirators haul pieces of 757 wreckage to the scene to plant, creating more risk for them? And where is the evidence of these activities taking place?

    Since they can't answer those questions logically, the truthers just invented a story about how the conspirators didn't want to haul about 60 tons or so of 757 wreckage to the scene so they decided to say most of the plane got buried so they wouldn't have to bring much debris to stage and they would never have to show all that alleged buried debris.

    It wasn't that great of a plan although it did fool most of the truthers.
     
  3. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is only concerned about the alleged debris in the ground.

    You guys must have watched different videos. The videos pointed out numerous oddities that added up pointed to those pieces of debris being staged.


    Seems like you forgot to answer this question:

    "Well that's the issue, where was most of that "recovered 95%" of the plane after this supposed crash? It's got to be somewhere, right?"

    If the crash was staged, who would be your first suspects?

    I don't necessarily accept that Flight 93 crashed there. Just as right now, I don't accept the official word that most of the plane was in the ground and I don't accept that those three supposedly unearthed debris pieces are genuine.
     
  4. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Couldn't have said it better myself! :sun:
     
  5. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But the video DID show evidence they were planted. How can that = fabricating?!? They showed evidence and gave opinions.
     
  6. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See the OP and we are still looking for proof it was. Got any?
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What 'official word' is that?
     
  8. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They show ZERO evidence that the boxes were planted. They stated what seemed to be "oddities" to them. Which by themselves are evidence of nothing. Then they gave the opinion that the the objects were planted.

    How they arrived at that conclusion based on their assertions is clear. How they could do so logically is another matter entirely.

    It went something like this.

    I'm sorry but a reasonable person would not come to that conclusion.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The video did NOT show anything being 'planted',you're seeing things that didn't happen
     
  10. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just from you having to greatly emphasis the word "zero" shows you either didn't watch the videos, or are greatly biased towards them. They showed evidence. Whether you want to accept that or not is your choice.

    It went nothing like that. More proof you either didn't pay attention, or you are greatly biased towards it.

    Got any proof most of the plane buried yet?
     
  11. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Watch the part about the excavator's bucket again. And open your eyes this time. :omg:
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from assumption and incredulity. A logical fallacy.

    When will you contact the volunteers who worked at the scene of the crash?
     
  13. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's it, throw as many big words out there as you can to try to deflect from the obvious.

    The volunteers you claimed gave you evidence proving most of the plane was buried, but won't share this supposed evidence?
     
  14. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had not posted when you asked that question, so the question was not for me.

    My only concern for that particular incident is the alleged bouncing engine...where was it found, who found it and where is it now?
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Objection,assumes facts not in evidence.
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dictionary.com

    Why get your evidence second hand when you can go right to the source? Be a grown up and take some responsibility.
     
  17. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wrong on both counts.

    They showed zero evidence of the black boxes being planted. Did you know that Honeywell and Allied Signal has been making FDRs and CVRs well before Flight 93 was put into service? Before Honeywell purchased Allied Signal? So the fact that they have two different labels means nothing. I'm sure the YouTube video creator could have unearthed that little nugget of information with a little effort, but that would remove his "gotcha" moment.

    It went exactly like that.

    Nope. Got any proof that the debris that they excavated were planted? Surely SOMEONE would have seen them hauling debris in.

    You QUOTED the post that contains the question. Were you not replying to that post?
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    No proof of evidence of planes being buried or bouncing engines. Why?

    There isn't any.
     
  19. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2nd hand is fine. Let's see what you got!
     
  20. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you talking about the very last of the many oddities the video brought up?

    Only in a skeptic's mind.

    No??? :omg: You believe something that you have ZERO evidence for?!? :bump:

    Amazing.
     
  21. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,709
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The matter is one of indifference to me, so I am not entering into a discussion about whether there was a conspiracy or not.

    I would simply like to point out that, after watching innumberable episode of CSI's 'Air Crash Investigation', I have come to the conclusion that an entire Boeing 757 burying itself in the ground (no matter at what speed) is very nearly a physical impossibility.

    The fuselage is not a solid steel object like the body of a bomb. It is a hollow cylinder of very lightweight aluminium, and does not have the rigidity to penetrate solid earth largely undistorted. It would simply shatter upon impact, leaving large sections scattered all around. Likewise the wings, very large objects of great span, would not fold neatly and disappear into the crater shown. Similarly with the tail plane and rudder fin. However, the engines bouncing a long distance is not unlikely - they are heavy, roughly cylindrical, and possessed of great inertia.

    I am not suggesting anything other than that past experience indicates an impact of that sort would have left substantial pieces of the aircraft, and most of the bodies, scattered over a large radius above ground.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the fuselage is more than a simple aluminum cylinder,look up how jets are made
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I thought for one moment that you were actually seeking truth, I would.

    Since you are obviously not, I'll just point you toward the source once again.
     
  24. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,709
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am aware of how modern aircraft are constructed - the fuselage is stressed to withstand the considerable pressure differential between internal and external atmospheres at high altitude. It is strenghtened at junction points and hard points (for the engines) but it is not built to withstand high speed longitudinal or lateral impact, or to penetrate the earth.
     
  25. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It's pretty hilarious how this theory of the planted United 93 stems from ONE source that's attempted to peddle it all over the net with not a lick of real evidence to back their garbage up.

    That one source is a blogger who has no credentials with regards to crash-scene investigations who only has the ability to toss up nonsense in the hopes something will stick. Speculative youtube vids and crap photoshopped "analysis" is all they have.

    That's the way the internets roll, so carry on truth seekers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page