Further proof UA93 didn't bury, media skipped it

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


And? I've seen the top photo a thousand times. It is not in focus which accounts for the lack of visible remains. Also the bottom photo. Seen it a lot. Really, just go on Google images and search "Plane crashes". If you are honest you'll see dozens of photos like the bottom one and if you didn't know by your own search parameters and the labels you would never be able to identify them as plane crashes. And there are dozens of photos of plane crashes that are easily identified as plane crashes. Just goes to prove that there is not hard and fast formula.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wasn't trying to get it exactly right,

I know you weren't trying to get it exactly right.

You made up a false number and went with it, as though you were right.

40 degrees is not anywhere a right angle.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Wasn't trying to get it exactly right,

I know you weren't trying to get it exactly right.

You made up a false number and went with it, as though you were right.

40 degrees is not anywhere a right angle.


OK, steep angle. Is that OK? Isn't relevant when speaking broadly. However, do you know it was EXACTLY 40 degrees? Not 39-40-25.89?

I did not make up a "false number", I mentioned no angle at all.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The skeptics have still not been able to give a logical answer to this:

Why didn't the news media report it when most of Flight 93, that had 44 passengers inside it, was supposedly found buried deep underground when it was previously thought that most of the plane had disintegrated?


The media reported right away when both black boxes and that one engine part were supposedly found underground, so why didn't the media report that the majority of the plane and passengers were supposedly found underground too?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
The skeptics have still not been able to give a logical answer to this:

Why didn't the news media report it when most of Flight 93, that had 44 passengers inside it, was supposedly found buried deep underground when it was previously thought that most of the plane had disintegrated?


The media reported right away when both black boxes and that one engine part were supposedly found underground, so why didn't the media report that the majority of the plane and passengers were supposedly found underground too?


Because that's not true? I really don't know where else to go with this, you keeping asking the same confused question and then wonder why you can't get a straight answer.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Because that's not true? I really don't know where else to go with this, you keeping asking the same confused question and then wonder why you can't get a straight answer.

Hooper, why do you keep lying?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Because that's not true? I really don't know where else to go with this, you keeping asking the same confused question and then wonder why you can't get a straight answer.

Hooper, why do you keep lying?



where did hooper go? been a while... I think its more than obvious why there's been no further responses by os supporters... another impossibility when you consider the op's facts.





[edit on 10-2-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
Because that's not true? I really don't know where else to go with this, you keeping asking the same confused question and then wonder why you can't get a straight answer.

Hooper, why do you keep lying?


If you can't tell the difference between florid prose and science then I can't help you.

I am not going to be enjoined to explain you misconceptions.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Poor hooper, can't admit when you're wrong.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Weedwacker, since you agree with the official story that most of UA93 had buried, can you give a rational explanation why officials didn't tell the media when they discovered most of the plane had buried and logically most of the passengers too?



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Weedwacker, since you agree with the official story that most of UA93 had buried, can you give a rational explanation why officials didn't tell the media when they discovered most of the plane had buried and logically most of the passengers too?


There is only one explanation, the idea that a plane full of passnegers was buried in Shanksville exists only between your ears, part of your fevered imagination; not a common location for media attention.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
There is only one explanation, the idea that a plane full of passnegers was buried in Shanksville exists only between your ears, part of your fevered imagination; not a common location for media attention.

You mean between Weedwacker and the media's ears and fevered imagination. I don't believe the idea that most of a 757 buried underground. That notion is silly. But it's not my notion. It's the notion of officials, the media, and skeptics like weedwacker and redman.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Then, we're ALL EARS>!<

What did NOT 'bury' in Shanksville?

Wait, before you respond...what did that 'mean ole' media' report about the two Recorders?

Were they just layin' on top of the ground, all neat like?



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
There is only one explanation, the idea that a plane full of passnegers was buried in Shanksville exists only between your ears, part of your fevered imagination; not a common location for media attention.

You mean between Weedwacker and the media's ears and fevered imagination. I don't believe the idea that most of a 757 buried underground. That notion is silly. But it's not my notion. It's the notion of officials, the media, and skeptics like weedwacker and redman.


No, this is strictly your idea that all the passengers were buried in a hole because you have this notion that the plane augered into the ground in one piece with the passengers inside and now are calling "inside job" because the media didn't report it that way never considering option "B" which is that you're wrong about the physical dynamics of the crash.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Why do you keep skipping over my questions to you?

Here it is again:

Weedwhacker, since you agree with the official story that most of UA93 had buried, can you give a rational explanation why officials didn't tell the media when they discovered most of the plane had buried and logically most of the passengers too?



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Oh weedwhacker?

Aren't you going to answer my important question to you?

You agree with that part of the official story that says most of UA93 buried. If that really happened, why didn't the media reported it right away *when* investigators who were digging discovered that most of the plane had supposedly buried? Surely the FBI would tell the media right away about this amazing feat.

Most of a large plane like a 757 buried is unprecedented. Something like that would be extremely newsworthy, wouldn't you agree? Especially when logically it would be assumed most of the passengers remains would be underground with the plane too.

Yet it wouldn't be until about a year later that the media started reporting the most of the plane had buried. How can you rationally explain that?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by ATH911]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I really don't understand the point of your question.

Why does this matter so much to you?

It was reported. I don't see the big deal. Don't ask me to speculate on media matters, ask them.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

You guys are always asking for smoking guns, so this is one.

The media didn't report about it until almost a year later.

Why didn't they report such an amazing thing right away?

The media reported right away when the black boxes and one of the engines was supposedly found in the ground. Why didn't the media report it right away about the more amazing realization that most of the plane had buried and assumingly most of the passenger with it too?



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
weedwacker, can you think of a rational explanation as to why it took the media about a year to report that most of UA93 supposedly buried?

Don't worry if you can't. I can't explain that either, but I at least admit that.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
What's the matter weedwacker,

Can't think of a rational explanation for this?





top topics
 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join