The plane wasn't hidden. It was recovered by the FBI and civilian volunteers. Truthers have proven to cowardly to contact those volunteers personally.
Non doctored pics?....you need to prove they WERE doctored first. And it's dirty,not rusty,and it's clearly the remains of the compressor of a jet engine
He has gone into total twoof mode, fingers in ears and warbbling. Posting will no longer serve any purpose of enlightening him. Just make sure that he doesn't get another chance to post an unchallenged lie for public consumption.
You seem like you're in total "I trust and believe everything I'm told" mode, with your fingers in your ears. Guess everybody chooses their sides.
Good question. Maybe you can answer. Was it buried, or wasn't it? One other detail...if "part" of it was buried, where was the rest of it that wasn't buried? Sure didn't look like it lay on top of the ground where the rest was supposedly buried. On hand hand, shills like to claim "part" of it was buried (in some part due to what was it..."soft earth" while other parts were found thousands of feet away. Apparently the same "soft ground" that inhaled the part of the plane that was buried, made the rest of the plane bounce away. I guess it must have been quicksand that sucked up the buried part, and when it was full of buried metal, it caused the rest to bound off of it and over some treetops, and land far away. Then there's the whole eyewitness reports of flaming parts falling from the sky. You guys just can't seem to pull together a consistent story that would cover all the known details. Keep working on it though. You can always throw in a few insults and ridicule the poster when they point it out. Seems to be a major part of the specialist attack.
The front of the aircraft went into the ground like a bullet. By the time the rear of the fuselage reached ground level, it had begun to lose both speed and structural integrity and broke up into hundreds of pieces which wound up scattered down-range. You can see from the angle of the impression that the vertical stabilizer made that it had already broken loose before it hit the ground. It still had considerable forward momentum and headed off into the woods down range. Nothing hard to understand here. Anybody who knows anything about aircraft crashes can read the crash site.
I see....the pit of quicksand sucked up part of the plane down to 30 plus feet, and ejected the remaining parts and sent them spinning and flying over treetops. Sure would have been telling to actually see even ONE of those "hundreds of pieces" anywhere close to the missile...I mean...alleged plane hole. The hole looked like a missile had been fired at the ground. I guess that's the part of the plane that the quicksand sucked up though. Those flaming parts falling from the sky? The plane was simply traveling so fast that it burned up the sky on its way into the pit of magic sand.
No, the aircraft went in like a very fragile bullet. The ground was relatively soft, compared to the site where Jenni Rivera's plane crashed. But bear in mond that this is a long aluminum structure we are talking about. It soon lost structural integrity and broke up, thus did not have the kinetic energy to penetrate the ground. It did have enough kinetic energy to follow the path of least resistance dowen-range. Some parts traveled farther than others. A lot of small parts lost forward momentum close to the hole because they were too light to overcome air resistance. The engine that was highest off the ground on impact broke free and skipped along the ground into the woods for a good distance. NONE of this is at all unusual. Ask anybody who has ever been on an air crash site. You actually have at least two of us here. There are all sorts of rectangular objects, some of them clearly metal, in the crater in more than one photo. Stop refusing to see them. Everybody with common sense sees them. No, it doesn't not a bit. Missiles do not make that kind of holes. We do not have onew big enough to make it by mechanical energy and NO explosives were used to create that hole. No, the ground did not "suck it in." Stop playing games. The plane displaced a large volumn of soil, some of it permanently, some temporarily. The dirt fell back in on spaces not completely filled with debris. That's what glacial till does. However, a ridge of pushed-up dirt does remain on the down range side of the crater in all pictures. No. When the back of the aircraft popped open, a lot of light-weight stuff blew out on the air thus released. The deflagration of the fuel created an updraft that pulled a lot of paper and fabric upward into the moving air, which scattered it in several directions, since the wind did not move in just one direction regardless of altitude. The idea that any of this could have been done by a missile is worse than childish. No, I don't have to prove it. You made the statement contrary to what any fire fighter or crash scene investigator saw, thus the the burden is on you to show that my analysis is based on untrue statements.
Great effort there. That keeps the reader tangled up very nicely indeed. Why is it that anything contradictory to the OBSS is completely null and void, and the obvious requires a lengthy "explanation" as to why something that looks like one thing has to be another thing? Pictures speak a thousand words. Eyewitness testimony about what it is they saw cuts through all that double speak. Use lots of fragmented explanations, coupled with a tangled web of non specific alternative explanations, mix up and spread then, viola! The "official" BS story"! You guys are a trip...
All of which you "accept" as evidence, correct?? So..if I were to present similar contradictory testimony or alternative eyewitness testimony, it would carry the same weight....right boss??
It certainly is! Great find! From your link: Many eyewitnesses of the plane crashing into the ground, zero eyewitnesses of a missile.
I think my favorite one is when the witness says his lights flickered from an EMP type blast a jet sent out as it fired a missile.. lol.
None of that proves anything. McIlwain is not reliable and kind of confused. You are misinterpretting the rest of it.
I will go one step further and say most things that are posted from a web address "wtfrly" are probably not going to be factual.
