How fast can skeptics prove that most of Flight 93 buried?

You'd have to ban a bunch of the skeptics for this to happen! They can't seem to not personally attack other members.

 

By "friend" I meant you. You bar story is about as substantive as cotton candy. Check YOUR facts before you look stupid.

Let's see some evidence the plane was planted suede, your complete lack of any should be embarrassing for a truthseeker.

 

You keep claiming I did. Can you provide any evidence?

 

Soon as you show me some good evidence the plane was buried. What's taking you so long?!

 

If you didn't make that claim, I'll stop claiming you did.

Did you claim some Shanksville 9/11 workers gave you photos and videos of the scene? yes or no

 

Let's put you in touch with the people who worked the scene.

Who specifically have you corresponded with so far?

 

If you didn't make that claim, I'll stop claiming you did.

Did you claim some Shanksville 9/11 workers gave you photos and videos of the scene? yes or no

 

There will never be enough "good" evidence for the likes of you. It's hard to compete with the solid sources you pick up at bars after all.

 

Try me. Post your evidence you think the average person would expect as proof the plane buried. Come on, let's see it.

 

Good. Now to get back on topic:

Let's get you in touch with first hand evidence from the people who worked the scene. Who specifically have you corresponded with?

 

So are you saying you never made that claim?

Btw, the topic is: How fast can skeptics prove that most of Flight 93 buried?

So far, not very fast!

 

It's been posted ad naseum, you just don't "think" it looks like enough. That's all your argument boils down to. That's not evidence, that's your opinion.

Meanwhile, your opinion doesn't seem particularly interested in the other evidence complied that day, but instead, you only focus on what percentage is or isn't underground (not that the actual number is particularly important or elucidating one way or another).

We've seen your dog chase it's tail over and over. I'm giving you the opportunity to provide some evidence beyond your little play-pretty that goes nowhere and proves nothing. Got anything else?

 

I'm saying: stop making this thread about me personally. Do not make claims about me you have no evidence for. Do it once more and I'll just put you on ignore and walk away.

The answer to the topic has been stated: Exactly as fast as you get in touch with the people who worked the scene and see their evidence.

Who specifically have you corresponded with so far?

 

What does that have to do with anything? It is a strawman. We do know he was in charge of all the remains, correct? And a good portion of the remains was recovered from the hole. One would have to be a complete retard to try and pretend Wally Miller never actually saw anything being recovered from the hole. Yet that is what you are asking everyone to be when you ask them to believe your bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to post me a link to where it has been posted "ad naseum" now, should it?! Come on, let's see it.

 

So are you saying you never made that claim?

 

No, it's really good evidence Miller was never in the hole because anybody with common sense would know that any half-decent news reporter hearing Miller was in the hole would mention it and ask about what he did and saw while working in the hole.

For the TONS of news articles mentioning and interviewing Wally Miller and NOT ONE OF THEM mentioning he was ever in the hole, pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good reason the news never mentions he was ever in the hole is because he never was in the hole.

Next.

 

Of course I didn't.

Let's put you in touch with the people who worked the scene.

Who specifically have you corresponded with so far?

Are you going to keep ducking this question?

 

Wrong yet again even with your own strawmen. By your own admission there is no reporter asking Wally Miller if he was in the hole. Thus it is a trivial thing and not germain to the discussion. In the mean time you've sucked ass at explaining how Wally Miller, the person in charge of the human remains, wouldn't be around the hole and see the wreckage. Funny how you claim the guy in charge never saw the aircraft being retrieved from the hole. You lose. AGAIN.

 

More post-clipping responses from you suede, so you can make your response out of context. You're such an honest poster......

That's typically a violation of the rules in most of the forums I've been a member of, but I'm not sure about if that's the case at this wacky forum.

Carry on truthseeker.

 

Whoa, you just did a complete reversal from saying you'd put me on ignore and walk away if I brought it up again and now you answer.

Just to make sure you're not pulling a DDave about what you are really answering to, please answer this real quick for the record:

Did you claim some Shanksville 9/11 workers gave you photos and videos of the scene? yes or no

 

Yeah, of all the details Miller was telling the media about his time during the investigation, Miller, who you skeptics are saying had to be in the hole many times, "forgot" to mention to the media that he'd been in the hole many times and the media, that was camped out at the scene with their eyes and cameras glued to the crater during the excavation, never saw Miller go into the hole the "multiple times."

Yeah, so believable.

So got any more of those "numerous" plane buried witnesses?

 

LOL, that's funny. And actually a compliment coming from the master of moving the goalposts and playing word games.

And irrefutable apparently. Must be frustrating.

Why does it matter if he was in the hole or not?

 

So what is your evidence he is lying? Come on. You're making the claim. Now back it up or run like a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Actually you didn't post ANY in the thread you cited.

I'd like to see some of the other evidence you have posted though.

Or are you still withholding it -- for leverage.