Flight 93 recovered underground?

Ignoring the evidence won't make it go away. The accepted narrative remains accepted.

 

Seems to work well for you. The narrative remains manipulated and corrupt.

 

If only you could prove that. Instead you focus on me.

Very flattering, but not very productive.

 

Your vanity isn't very flattering, nor productive.

 

Yet you can't look away. All you see is me.

In more than just this forum, it seems.

 

You're a beautiful person! How could I?

 

And it's obvious nothing will.

It's hilarious that a 757 supposedly dug itself in the ground and when asking for proof of that, all the "smart" skeptics here have to say go ask someone else, they are not smart enough to be able to prove a 757 was mostly in the ground.

Of course Hannibal did start off by saying the conspiracy theory that nothing was really buried had been debunked and that there were links that addressed the fact the plane was largely recovered from within the earth.

I guess he lied about those two things too.

 

I guess suede was lying when he said:

He changes his mind daily, though. Maybe tomorrow he'll be a 'no-planer' like 'Fraud.

Hmmm ... maybe today he already is. He seems to be stating that there was 'no-plane' at Shanksville, and he's afraid to talk to the people who were on the scene...

 

Once again, I encourage anyone to contact the people who were on the scene. Ask to see their pictures, their videos ... hear their stories.

Those that just want to focus on me, I flattered, but I'm not the topic.

 

How many times are you going to lie about what I meant? Are you that desperate you have to troll my minor grammatical mistake out and lie about my position every time I point out your lies?

Well if it's almost been 10 years and you still can't prove most of a 757 was in the ground, I guess you are that desperate.

But hey, you claim to have contacted some Shanksville workers during the dig (among multiple other outrageous claims by you). I'm sure your "pals" would be able to send "their friend" some evidence. What are you waiting for?

It would be like killing two birds with one stone, you could prove, once and for all, that most of a 757 had indeed buried, and also prove that you didn't lie about contacting in the first place.

Come on, Hannibal. Show everyone you're not a liar!

 

I've never said one thing about what you meant. I simply showed what you said. I am not lying in the least about what you said. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.

Either you didn't say what you meant, which would be a lie, or you have trouble communicating clearly.

As for the rest, why take the info second hand? Go directly to the source, which I have provided to you. Conversely, you can continue to obsess over me.

You probably won't seek out the evidence first hand, because you have already stated:

 

To attempt to get onto topic, let's discuss what we witness about UA93.

Shown below is the iconic photo of what is said to be the crash site at Shanksville PA and what you say is a jet engine and what I say is, first of all, a hydraulic excavator as the most visible and only truly identifiable thing in the foreground of the picture. As to the hydraulic excavator, no true statement can be said, even, about the size of it based on not knowing the telephoto and other relevant information about the photograph.



I understand some people claim the thing next to the excavator is a jet engine.

What they could do, but haven't is post up a photo of the completely excavated piece of junk (for that it is the only valid way it can be described in the photo) to show that it might be something else.

As it sits and based on what can be reasonably seen and not assumed, the best guess as to what that is, in my view, is a wheel cover.

Do you all concede there is no positive identification of the piece of junk as a jet engine and that the claim is based on what you believe and not on what you can independently prove?

 

The infamous picture of something in the dirt, somewhere unproven. The same ONE. Dirt, metal, something, somewhere. Hardly conclusive. More than enough for "official" BS believers though.

 

Exactly my point. It could be hubcaps for all the evidence presented.

 

Hubcaps ...

Wow.

 

Except for the fact jet aircraft don't HAVE hubcaps


And don't you think TRAINED crash investigators might have gotten in the hole and took a closer look?

Not to mention they have seen enough of the parts to instantly recognize them.

 

Hunter, don't you know how that "engine" was planted?

Hint: you're staring at it.

 

Photos please?

 

So prove me wrong

 

I see no marks on the inside of the backhoe bucket to indicate the debris was ever inside it


More red herrings

 

Hubcaps are as reasonable as a plane engine. Neither suggestion is any more provable than the other.

 

Wow! Would you just look at all those plane parts!

 

I don't see any evidence that the pile of junk was an "engine" at all.

 

to whom?....Joe Schmo conspiracy theorist, or a steely eyed veteran NTSB crash investigator?

 

My point exactly. Thank you. If all the hand-wavers would simply look at the pictures with hoonesty, they would see there is no evidence of airplanes.