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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

What's the matter weedwacker,

Can't think of a rational explanation for this?