Flight 93 recovered underground?

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jul 14, 2011.

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

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because it's common courtesy to answer in the order the questions were given. I asked you first do you believe most of Flight 93 was buried. After you answer, I'll answer yours. It's that simple.

    Because the thread topic is:

    "Flight 93 recovered underground?"

    not:

    "Flight 93 crashed?"
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your question required and still requires clarification. You asserted that that a claim was officially made. I needed to know where you acquired this information before I answered your question.

    You refused.

    You obfuscated.

    You tried to make the discussion about me.

    But you never clarified your question.

    I'm starting to think that you made up that this claim was officially made.
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

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

    Cripes...that's a "No, I cannot offer anything concrete". There. The "all about me" line again. Oy vey.......
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It certainly looks that way. The third? Probably a different shill will be called in to take a stab at it.
     
  5. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't answer a simple question about your belief of what happened??? Kinda funny when you skeptics claim truthers have no evidence of an inside job and when we call you on your position of the official story, you dodge, dodge, dodge.

    Hannibal claims to have spoken to workers at the scene who verify this was the claim. They even convinced Hannibal this is what happened (so he says):

    Hannibal: "The people on the scene confirmed for me that the plane was mostly buried."
    "I believe the people on the scene, and they say the majority of UA93 was buried at the scene of the crash."

    "The links address the fact that most of the plane was recovered on that site, largely from within the earth."
    Me: "Flight 93 recovered underground?" Hannibal: "Most of it, yes."

    So for the 3rd time, Fangbeer, do you believe most of Flight 93 buried in the ground? The question only requires on of those simple yes/no type of answers.
     
  6. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are very mistaken. The crater was only about 10 feet deep and on 9/13 after they started digging, they "found" the first black box 15 feet below the crater. On 9/14 they "found" the second black box at 25 feet below. The black boxes are located in the tail section of the 757, btw.

    No trapping. It's a very relevant question. The FBI said they recovered 95% of the plane. That amount of debris had to be somewhere. Where was most of it? That's basically my question.
     
  7. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, again, I don't proclaim to be an expert on any of this. Maybe you could answer my previous query... How does this depth of 10 ft vs. 25 feet change the generally accepted narrative?
    According to their report, some of it was below the ground, some was on the ground, some was in trees, some was very close by, some was relatively far away. Basically, it was all over the place. The largest portion was in the main impact crater, obviously.

    Are you disputing that Flight 93 crashed there? Are you disputing that it was crashed there when the passengers tried to re-take the plane (i.e. are you a "shot down" guy)? Where are we going with this? Why can't you 9/11 Deniers just get there and say what you think happened?

    I mean, we could probably spend 150 posts discussing how good the visibility was at an altitude of 35,000 feet on 9/11/01, but how would it change what we know happened?
     
  8. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit, er convict in this case.

    Why do you say the largest portion of wreckage was in the crater?

    I'm trying to determine that.

    No. I don't believe anything was shot down.

    Well when you 9/11 truth deniers stop dodging my questions and answer them, the faster I'll be able to come to my conclusion. But I've came to the conclusion nothing was buried a while ago.
     
  9. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is the point, you think you "know" what happened.

    Where is the engine allegedly found in the woods close/in the woods far/pond?
     
  10. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The depth at which the flight data recorder was discovered below ground level is not, in any stretch of the imagination, dispositive of the generally accepted narrative.
    Because that's where it was. Everyone who was there and everyone who investigated the crash site confirms that.
    What could it be if not Flight 93? And what happened to Flight 93, if it didn't crash there?

    There's a huge tome of evidence showing Flight 93 crashed there after the passengers tried to retake the plane. The depth of the black box at the crash site doesn't change all that other evidence. That's what you people need to get through your heads.

    One small anomaly you can't explain, or even a bunch of them, does not in any way refute the rest of the unassailable evidence.
    Fair enough. Those people are out there.
    Ummm ok... So what happened at Shanksville... They just blew up a random piece of land?
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83

    fools!

    it could not reach that depth if it was shot out of a gun LMAO
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    :fart:

    verbose duckin n dodgin!
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And now we finally get down to it.

    This is argument from fallacy. If the argument is false, this does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. This is why I need to know who made this claim.

    For example, if you tell me that an FBI agent gave an interview in which he stated that 95% of the debris was located in the Earth's core I would certainly agree with you that his testimony would be false.

    On the other hand, the majority of the plane may very well have been mostly buried in the field and no one thought it was entirely important to document exactly where each piece of debris was located. I think this is the most likely scenario as the plane entered the ground at a high angle of attack with a high velocity. The ground was a soft earth field and the momentum of the plane would have logically driven the debris into the ground.

    The reason I asked where your claim originated was that I knew you were trying to establish the type of fallacy above. An invalid statement in part of the narrative does not inherently invalidate the entire narrative.

    In the big picture, the exact location of the debris is minutia. It doesn't help us to understand what an air traffic controller heard, the intent of the hijackers, what a family member heard, what a coroner found, what a CVR recorded, etc. Forensically, the overall distribution of debris is more relevant, yet it only helps us to determine aircraft velocity, attitude, direction, strength characteristics, etc.

    The important part to realize is that if you invalidate the testimony of one official, this does not invalidate the testimony of the air traffic controller who said he heard someone in the cockpit claim a bomb was on the aircraft. This does not invalidate the testimony of the family members that spoke with their loved ones. This does not invalidate the testimony of emergency professionals that arrived on scene. This does not invalidate the testimony of other FBI agents that investigated the crash. This does not invalidate the testimony of local officials like the coroner who identified the human remains. This does not invalidate the testimony of the NTSB professionals who analyzed the data on the FDR and CVR. This does not invalidate the testimony of the commission that compiled the data above.

    In short, you can not claim that if one person is incorrect, that all of the other people above must be lying. You have to take each claim on piece by piece, and many of which are rock solid. Instead you chose to take on a weak point that's difficult for anyone to confirm or deny so that you could attack every other point using guilt by association.
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indulge me in an analogy a moment.

    Let's say a clown walks into the room. 10 people see the clown walk in. 5 people capture the clown on their cell phones. A security video records the image of the clown's face. An official clown inspector measures the clown and determines that indeed he is a clown. A court stenographer records the clown's attire. Auto tapes record a few lame clown jokes. 2 people get squirted in the face with clown flower water and the water is tested and shown to be clown brand clown water. On his way out, the clown drops his wallet and leaves behind his clown license and his spare foam nose.

    10 years after the fact in an attempt to discredit the story, someone demands to know exactly what color socks the clown was wearing. In doing so they call into question the character of the court stenographer who wrote that the clown's socks were brown, when 2 people in the crowd remember that the socks were purple. The video doesn't show what color sock the clown was wearing, the cell phone photos are too low res to tell, and no one mentioned socks on the audio tape.

    Is this evidence that everyone is lying?
    Is it evidence that no one saw a clown?
    Is it evidence that there's a clown sock coverup?
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's ironic that you would even use this phrase, because the phrase itself became famous as a result of the fallacy it was founded in. Cochran was using the exact same type of obvious fallacy to cast doubt on the guilt of OJ.

    It's fallacious to say that if OJ's hand didn't fit in a glove, that he couldn't be responsible for the murders of Ron and Nichole.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The point of that aspect of the OJ case, was to suggest the gloves were planted. Couple that with Furman lying about the use of the N word, and you have reasonable doubt. It wasn't supposed to suggest OJ didn't kill anybody. I watched the trial every day. Did you?

    9/11 is similar, in that the lies don't fit with 93 crashing there and in the manner they claim it did. In fact, that's what wrong with the whole 9/11 "official" BS story. Oddities, missing evidence. Conflicting stories galore.

    You can't even arrive at the correct conclusion in the OJ case, yet you claim to understand 9/11 and the hidden plane.
     
  17. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just like all of your nitpicking about supposed anomalies isn't supposed to suggest that the generally accepted account is untrue. Right?
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83

    you mean generally shoved down the worlds throats
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly.

    Cochran, absent evidence that the gloves were planted, had to use argument from fallacy to suggest the gloves were planted. He created a false dilemma, either the gloves fit, or OJ must be acquitted, and then asserted that the state's argument was fallacious due to the fact that the glove they claimed was OJ's didn't fit OJ's hand. (why anyone would plant a glove that wasn't OJ's to implicate OJ I'll never know)

    The truth of the matter was that there could have been many reasons why the glove didn't fit. Whether or not the glove was planted was just one explanation for the phenomenon. Cochran didn't prove the glove was planted. He suggested it, and then let the jury's confirmation bias do the rest.

    Do you know what the word acquit means? The police force wasn't on trial for planting gloves. OJ was on trial for murder. Acquittal from the murder charge means he was not guilty of the charge.

    Truthers here are trying to use this same fallacy of false dilemma on the subject of flight 93. Either the wreckage was found mostly in the hole, or the whole story is a lie.

    It's fallacy, and an easy fallacy to spot.
     
  20. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I tried to run it up to 500 so we could dispense with this silly thread. An
     
  21. daisydotell

    daisydotell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    2,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is now closed. You may start another if you wish.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page