• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

The picture doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's amazing that anybody could look at the picture and automatically assume it's a setup, especially given the HUGE amount of additional evidence a plane crashed there.

I can just picture a bunch of giggling construction workers burying planted debris in a little trench and taking pictures. "Yea, that'll fool 'em all, Ted. Keep snapping pictures!".

It's ludicrous.
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...

So, when you called UAL, what did they tell you? Oh, and who did you talk to there?
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...


Are you that stupid? The engines were on the wings. The plane flew into the ground upside down. And you expect the engines to be in the center of the impact hole where the fuselage hit????
 
bill smith said:
Below is the simple question I asked Beachnut. He is being very evasive as you can see. Ask yourself why. Why will he not answer directly if he believes what he says ?

'' First tell us as an experienced aircraft accident investigator what it means if live video taken shortly after the crash clearly shows NO wing marks from the impact of flight 93.''
Click to expand...

For the sake oif those who wonder what BS is banging on about, I, also an Air Force-trained crash and fie investigator, will state that the absence of wign marks connected to the crater made by the fuselage of Flt 93 at Shanksville would indicate that something other than a complete aircraft was buried under the ground there.

The problem is that only Bill smith's ear crickets have ever seen any such video, and that while under the influence of a psychotropic substance.

Give it up, Bill, there is no such video. There were wing marks and they are visible to any person with a greater-than-room-temp IQ...Oh....wait a minute.

I'm not supposed to go there, am I?
 
Last edited:
I would like to make a prediction.
Mr. Smith will search and find the video he is thinking of. Once viewing it, he will see there are wing marks at the crash site. He will then, instead of concluding that his memory was faulty, will conclude that we doctored the video.
I await my million dollars.
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence that the photo was set up in this fashion, or have you simply deduced it from your interpretation of the contents of the photo?

RedIbis said:
That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.
Click to expand...

Given that the piece is still partly buried, what do you mean by "not in that position originally"? Are you suggesting that it was moved, partly re-buried, and that the photograph was then taken? If so, what evidence do you have for this being done?

RedIbis said:
Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...

This seems to me an utterly idiotic question. If a trench was excavated by being enlarged laterally, then it is a logical certainty that everything excavated was "close to the rim". What do you imagine it being close to the rim of?

I eagerly await your evasions.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Do you have evidence that the photo was set up in this fashion, or have you simply deduced it from your interpretation of the contents of the photo?

Given that the piece is still partly buried, what do you mean by "not in that position originally"? Are you suggesting that it was moved, partly re-buried, and that the photograph was then taken? If so, what evidence do you have for this being done?

This seems to me an utterly idiotic question. If a trench was excavated by being enlarged laterally, then it is a logical certainty that everything excavated was "close to the rim". What do you imagine it being close to the rim of?

I eagerly await your evasions.

Dave
Click to expand...

i dont think red took the whole picture into consideration

i think he believes it is a picture of an undisturbed crash site and that the engine just showed up there

obviously he failed to notice the large pile of earth behind the shovel


800pxflight93enginebill.jpg
 
AJM8125 said:
This one?


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_268324a27ccfe8e0f1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The top of the cut appears to be slightly higher than the terrain in the background, thus would be on the down-range side of the crater. It is not raised by a great deal, thus would be on one of the wing prints, rather than in the hole with the fuselage.

Kind of where I would expect it to be.

I recall seeing somewhere a picture of the crash site with a mark indicating where one of the engines was found. I think it was on the Fox News (ick!) footage, but it may still be of some use here.
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...
This is the best lie you can make up? The terrorists need better apologist; you must do better for your terrorist friends you apologize for and make better lies.
 
leftysergeant said:
The top of the cut appears to be slightly higher than the terrain in the background, thus would be on the down-range side of the crater. It is not raised by a great deal, thus would be on one of the wing prints, rather than in the hole with the fuselage.

Kind of where I would expect it to be.

I recall seeing somewhere a picture of the crash site with a mark indicating where one of the engines was found. I think it was on the Fox News (ick!) footage, but it may still be of some use here.
Click to expand...

Yes the scar on the ground looks slightly deifferent than it did in those 90's satellite photos.
 
Last edited:
Nother day. Nother lie from B S

bill smith said:
AS an aircraft accident investigator you should be able to tell us if there would have been wing marks either side of the central hole.And you should also be able to tell us what it means if there WERE no such marks in video taken shortly after the crash. Do you want to commit ?
Click to expand...


Produce the Video B S,

Or,, Run Forrest RUN!
 
Shalamar said:
[TWOOFER]

So that is how it was all planted!

[/TWOOFER]
Click to expand...

Go on ... admit it ... how filthy did it make you feel just to type that?




So ... Bill... where's this video you were talking about?
Can we have a link please?
 
chillzero said:
Go on ... admit it ... how filthy did it make you feel just to type that?




So ... Bill... where's this video you were talking about?
Can we have a link please?
Click to expand...

Beachnut is still deciding whether he wants to commit or not. You should tell him to get on with it.
 
chillzero said:
Go on ... admit it ... how filthy did it make you feel just to type that?
Click to expand...

Very. But it is how they think. Too bad they aren't actually interested in the truth.

Excuse me. I need to wash my hands again. Maybe get a new keyboard..



So ... Bill... where's this video you were talking about?
Can we have a link please?
Click to expand...

I'll be stunned if he actually shows one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom