As I said, if you could provide something more specific, and let me know how the question affects the narrative, I'd be happy to answer. Per the investigative reports, yes, a sizable portion of the wreckage "dug in" to the ground and was below the usual surface of the ground there. It was largely a crater-type wreckage site. If something is at the bottom of a crater, like the black boxes for example, which were at the bottom of a 25-foot-deep hole, that's "below ground" but I wouldn't consider it "buried." Clearly, your question consists of weasel words in an attempt to "trap" me. There is no point in me answering an irrelevant question. Whether I think a plane was "buried" or not has no bearing that I can see on the generally accepted narrative, specifically that it crashed. Into the ground.