20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 2
79
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
If you are suggesting a shootdown and that happened, the plane did not crash in that Shanks field. The plane would have crashed near the end of the 8 mile debris field around New Baltimore and that means the Shanks scene had to have been a pre-planned staged scene which means the shootdown was also pre-planned before 9/11.


Maybe, but the crater was so unimpressive to me, that I could also see it being something done on a moment's notice from any number of things being fired/dropped on the ground there. These are all very legitimate possibilities to me, which just goes to show why a transparent investigation of these things could shed so much more information.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
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.


"Truther" is the intellectual equivalent of racism. If you think about that for even a second, then you will realize where your fallacy is, of assuming I am "supposed" to say certain things but I did not.


Are you also ready to admit you don't really know what happened that day yet?


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.


Alright, well then you certainly have a lot more faith in these officials given their track record than I do. I'm willing to share that difference with you. I still want answers to these questions. If you don't, that's no loss to me.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Starred and flagged, simply because most of these legitimate questions often get buried under crap.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What does it matter what my "leading theory" is? Who am I?

Well you brought up questions that suggest a shootdown, so just curious if a shootdown is what you believe and where you believe it crashed. It's no reason to get defensive.


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.

I see little evidence that supports a shootdown to be honest. The 8-mile debris field is definitely strange as hell, but at the very best, the only way it could be from a shootdown is if the plane crashed around New Baltimore and I don't see how a 757 could crash without producing a long trail of smoke in the air able to been seen from miles on end.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I see little evidence that supports a shootdown to be honest.


There is little evidence to be had at this point, you're right. But neither is there much evidence of anything else happening honestly. You have about as much testimony and reason to believe it was shot down as you do that it wasn't, and the 8-mile debris field is just one of the anomalies that aren't well explained and warrant further investigation.


I don't see how a 757 could crash without producing a long trail of smoke in the air able to been seen from miles on end.


That's fine, but what was spread out over 8 miles wasn't smoke... One of the witness testimonies I cited on the main page even ventures the explanation that things were sucked out of the plane over that stretch because a hole was formed in the fuselage and the decompression sucked that debris out before the plane hit the ground. That isn't me coming up with this stuff, that was someone related to the actual time and place of the event. I don't think we are really in disagreement that there is more to be had than what we have had thus far.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
But neither is there much evidence of anything else happening honestly. You have about as much testimony and reason to believe it was shot down as you do that it wasn't

IMO, all the evidence points to no plane crashing.


and the 8-mile debris field is just one of the anomalies that aren't well explained and warrant further investigation.

It's definitely weird. Hard to believe they would classify few pieces of "light debris" as a "debris field." A debris field sounds to me like a LOT of debris was found in a certain area.

As to what caused the 8-miles worth of debris, it makes me wonder what that C-130 "cargo" plane was doing in the area, although no one actually witnessed one. Quite the enigma.


One of the witness testimonies I cited on the main page even ventures the explanation that things were sucked out of the plane over that stretch because a hole was formed in the fuselage and the decompression sucked that debris out before the plane hit the ground.

But that would mean the plane had to have crashed around New Baltimore, but there would be a long trail of smoke in the air for all to see.


I don't think we are really in disagreement that there is more to be had than what we have had thus far.

True dat.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Great job BSray. Starred and flagged.

The thread is nice and easy to follow, well put together, and asks some of the more pertinent questions that STILL are unanswered.

and I agree, it IS NOT our job to answer these question, or know what happened. That's what the 9/11 commission report was supposed to do, but failed to do.

Again excellent thread.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Please substantiate the claim that the tapes exist.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
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......



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
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




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
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]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
On question # 14 it looked like someone was blow-torching it. WOW.





top topics
 
79
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join