20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 79 times


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 11:40 PM by ATH911
reply to post by bsbray11



So your leading theory is Flight 93 was shootdown, but crashed somewhere around New Balitmore and the perps had to stage a crash quickly and choose the Shanks field?


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 12:00 AM by john124
Originally posted by ipsedixit
I wish the game were called 21 Questions (or even a bigger number). You could include a question wondering how President Bush managed to see the impact on the North Tower on television a day before the rest of the world saw it.

Note: This is no mere slip of the banana peel the ex-president used for a tongue. This is a whole anecdote.



Memo to bsbray11: Apologies. I jumped the gun with my post. If this shows up as one of your 20, I'll delete it. I thought . . . forget it. I wasn't thinking.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by ipsedixit]


He was obviously confused and meant that he saw the plane hitting later on the TV after the footage was given to the media. People often exagerrate, whether it's intentional or not, and this is probably no different.

Bush tended to make silly slip-ups in his speeches quite often, and most of them have no obvious conspiracy behind them, and with so many gaffes and freudian slip-ups, it's not surprising at least one has appeared to be controversial. Bush may have thought about what he saw later and thought back to that day, and mixed-up the two together - it's what human beings do from time-to-time, and Bush is definitely no exception.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by john124]



reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 12:05 AM by john124
reply to post by bsbray11



The title of your thread suggests the questions you ask remain unanswered, and so you're implying you cannot answer them either. Even if assuming that's the case, then what exactly is the claim here - as you haven't provided any evidence of an inside-job or any traditional "truther" claim.

Certain aspects of these types of events, even if the govt. account is entirely accurate, will remain secretive or just misunderstood. National security secrets does not necessarily imply guilt.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 12:06 AM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ATH911
reply to
post by bsbray11



So your leading theory is Flight 93 was shootdown, but crashed somewhere around New Balitmore and the perps had to stage a crash quickly and choose the Shanks field?



What does it matter what my "leading theory" is? Who am I?

I am very happy to admit to you that I don't know what in the hell happened.

And if anyone here would like to claim that they do, well, I already know that they really don't (unless they were there/made it happen), and maybe with a little nurturing maybe I can help them make the same realization.

It's not as if there isn't circumstantial evidence for all of these things anyway. If there WAS a shootdown, well, you have all of the testimony you would expect honestly. So I will leave it for time to tell, whether we will ever get a definitive answer publicly or not.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:34 AM by Kryties
Originally posted by bsbray11
4) For what reason are Pentagon surveillance tapes showing the impact of Flight 77 still being withheld?

This one explains itself. What are we going to see that keep the tapes out of public view? Anything? There is still no answer, 8 years later.


I asked this question in another thread here and jthomas answered me by saying:

Originally posted by jthomas

It's a mistake in reasoning. Suppose a video surfaced definitely show an American Airlines approaching and hitting the Pentagon. What would that actually change?

Would it change the other evidence that already demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Of course not.

Would it change your mind? Perhaps. But then you don't believe the massive evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Would you suddenly now accept all of that evidence only to come to the realization that the evidence was right in front of you all these years?

The fact is that any video that surfaced showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon does not change the existing evidence in any way whatsoever.


Unbelievable huh! That has to be the most ridiculous response that question could ever receive. It's this simple: Video evidence would conclusively prove that either Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or it didn't. His response was just smoke and mirrors trying to deflect attention away from the obvious.

[edit on 24/10/2009 by Kryties]


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 07:28 AM by hooper
reply to post by Kryties



Please substantiate the claim that the tapes exist.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 07:30 AM by hooper
reply to post by bsbray11




2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?


Please substantiate the claim that the crash site was spread out over 8 miles.



reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 07:34 AM by hooper
reply to post by bsbray11





6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?


Please substantiate the free fall in a vaccum claim.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:29 AM by thedman
reply to post by GenRadek





Ummm. all these questions have been answered. May times over. Ad nauseum. Years ago.

Yet some people still think that if they ask the same answered questions over and over again, ignoring the actual answers that have been given, they may one day get an answer they like. But I guess the actual answers arent good enough? Why is that?



Wasn't it Einstein who said definition of insanity is doing same thing over and over expecting a deifferent result.

Looks like perfect definition of truthism......


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:35 AM by Darkside Agent
reply to post by bsbray11



s&f for the questions posed and the format.

I didn't even know the background to some of these questions and have made me look at things relating to 9/11 in a different way.

Good thread, good questions, hope it doesn't get derailed like most 9/11 threads into name calling and pointless arguments




reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 09:00 AM by slyce
Great thread, hundreds of unanswered questions. Here's another on.


DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

transcripts.cnn.com...

And here's another


PLANT: Well, and speaking to people here at the Pentagon, as they're being evacuated from the building. I'm told by several people that there was, in fact, an explosion.

I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky.

I'm attempting to make my way around to that side of the building in my car right now to see if I can get a better visual perspective on the scene on that side of the building. But I can tell you that security has certainly clamped down. The U.S. Park Police another federal law enforcement department, has arrived in force on the scene. There is a Park Police helicopter overhead, every car arrives at the gates where I was located was being stopped by officers at gun point, everyone is being forced out of their vehicles as they arrive at the Pentagon.

It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion. That's about all I have from here.

transcripts.cnn.com...



[edit on 24-10-2009 by slyce]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags