20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Whatever are your believe i would kindly advise you to keep an open mind .
Because you know, i you hermetic to this stuff you zont see it coming.

Great questions, and yes there are so many more. What amazes me is how easy it was for TPTB to get the majority of the public to believe them. With so many basic common sense questions left either with obscure answers or complete falsehoods.
Just the fact that it took over 400 days for the commission to assemble is grounds for a separate investigation. I believe that most of the people that stand by the commission report are in denial that their own government could be involved. They just won't acknowledge the questions and the facts. For if they did, their realities will crumble and leave them in a state of total confusion. At least with the report they can move on with their lives, with their blinders in place, and exist without worries.
ATS is about questioning the MSM and TPTB, always digging for the truth and answers for the unexplained. So, if your view on these matters is not up for question, why are you here? We have read the report, heard all the evidence and watched all the films, just as you have. The only difference is, you believe it and we still have questions. So, if you have no answers to the question, please move on to another thread with your emotional outbreaks, name calling and silliness. ATS is becoming more like a Junior High School Debate Club, than a Forum of like minded individuals in pursuit of the truth.

posted by hooper
reply to post by Kryties

 

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.

posted by Kryties
I asked this question in another thread here

Please substantiate the claim that the tapes exist.

posted 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.

Please substantiate the claims yourself. If you have half a brain, it should take only about five minutes on an ordinary google search. Try the Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire tapes and Flight 93 debris fields.
Sheesh some people are helpless.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63b7387179af.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


Yeah, just like I thought, baseless.

reply to post by bsbray11


Still not completely sure if these are what you are referring to. Here's a pic from the blueprints, I had to resize it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05695429cc93.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Fedge
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

Whatever are your believe i would kindly advise you to keep an open mind .

Because you know, i you hermetic to this stuff you zont see it coming.

Spell check man, seriously. I really have no idea what you're assuming.

Originally posted by ATH911

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.

I'm curious what your handle means ATH911. Would you care to explain it to me? Just curious is all. If this is an offensive request of you then please disregard.

But I'm more curious how a 8 mile long debris field can be seen as anything other than a disintegrating aircraft. You even admit that it's strange. It's not strange, it's called a SMOKING GUN. Why is it that your cognitive reasoning has taken a back seat to the obvious in this situation?

Don't forget that this was a remote part of Pennsylvania, not a metropolis that it lost altitude through. Also, not all planes that are hit put out huge smoke trails. There were B-17s and Flying Fortresses that were hit in WW2 that simply disintegrated with engines still running while the wings collapsed. There is also film of Japanese fighter planes being hit and disintegrating as they fell to the ocean with no smoke trails what so ever. The actual film footage of this phenomina occuring is in the public domain for that matter. It just seems like you are making a big assumption (i.e. there must have been a 8 mile long smoke trail) in order to protect an entrenched position.

It's like saying: "Yes the man had 27 gun shot wounds to his head. I find that kind of strange but I'm sticking with the suicide explanation handed down by the town coroner who was just seen driving a brand new luxury car out of his brand new million dollar home."

The mental gymnastics required to stick to a fairy tale are my favorite entertainment pastime to watch unfold on ATS folks! And the 911 debunker kids never let me down. This last comment is not directed at you ATH911, but at the 911 debunker crowd in general.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Still not completely sure if these are what you are referring to. Here's a pic from the blueprints, I had to resize it.

That looks like it's from the same set of files. If so, yeah, those are architectural drawings, and there is no known source for them (someone anonymously emailed them to Steven Jones is how they started spreading) and no way to tell their accuracy. And then there is the older set from the mid-1960's that are also architectural and from before the towers were even constructed. Like I said earlier, they were revised for 6 months by the PA after they were submitted even in final form.

Originally posted by hooper
Please substantiate the claim that the crash site was spread out over 8 miles.

Please read the sources given in the original post.

Originally posted by hooper
Please substantiate the free fall in a vaccum claim.

Please read the source given in the original post.




Please don't make me spoon feed you.


Btw, if you are not even going to read the things I post, why should I even bother talking to you? Anyone can come in here, not read a damn thing, and post a bunch of one-liners. Are you trolling or what?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted 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]

LOL! More classic 9/11 "Truther" lack of reasoning. It's remarkable that I bring up the most obvious logical FACT about the videos and a 9/11 "Truther" goes haywire, diving deep into irrational woo.

Sorry, Kryties, you'll be wanting to retract your statement as soon as you sit down and think how completely irrational and embarrassing your statement is to you.

This is the classic problem with 9/11 "Truthers" who have been led down the garden path by their fellow "Truthers" into actually believing, against ALL reason and logic, that we do not have the evidence already to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

When will you ever come out of the fog and understand that no one in the world needs ANY video to KNOW that all of the evidence we have had since 9/11 demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? How could you NOT know that, Kryties?

Originally posted by jthomas
LOL! More classic 9/11 "Truther" lack of reasoning. It's remarkable that I bring up the most obvious logical FACT about the videos and a 9/11 "Truther" goes haywire, diving deep into irrational woo.

I'm not even going to ask how not releasing the videos, just to "distract" people, is "the most obvious logical FACT."

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

Enough with the personal comments

[edit on 10/24/2009 by semperfortis]

Originally posted 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?

It's the nature of the beast. "Truthers" will always repeat questions to which answers have already been given that they find inconvenient to their desired conclusions.

In fact, all the "questions" "Truthers" repeat here have been dealt with anywhere from 2002 to 2006. I believe it was 2006 when the last "new" question was asked by a "Truther", or maybe in 2005.

The most interesting thing about all their repeated questions is how virtually ALL of them are based on incorrect or made-up data, and often flat-out lies.

It's quite remarkable that "Truthers" NEVER question themselves and their beliefs, don't you think?

OK, here we go again.

Posts that contain snide comments about other members will be removed and the poster possibly warned.

Posts that are Off Topic will be removed and the poster possibly warned.

Posts that are simply about any other member, their posting style, education etc, will be removed and The Poster Warned.

If we can't debate like adults, we can't debate at all

Semper

Originally posted by jthomas
we do not have the evidence already to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Even though the evidence that would definitively prove what happened EXISTS it has not be released...

Since we don't have conclusive evidence everything else is just speculations and assumption...

The question we should be asking is, Why have the videos that will actually prove something not been released?

What I think is amazing is the fact that no one has even tried to touch any of the 20 questions so far, only talked smack about "truthers."


No, it's predictable.


Here's a challenge: try to find where jthomas established anything at all (besides his opinion of "truthers," anyway) in his last two posts. And for that matter, all future posts.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Posts that are simply about any other member, their posting style, education etc, will be removed and The Poster Warned.

If we can't debate like adults, we can't debate at all

Say, for the sake of argument, someone is posting to the thread repeatedly, but all they are doing is slandering "truthers" as a group and nothing more. Does that fall under "posting style" and is therefore untouchable?

Would I not be allowed to simply point out there are no facts in said posts? Because I don't know how else a "debate" is supposed to take place here when all there is, is ranting and raving about "truthers" being stupid, ignoring answers given to them, etc., etc., instead of actually addressing any of the questions I posted in the OP.

Am I still allowed to even mention other posters' usernames in my posts?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


This is not the place to discuss this, but for the sake of continuity I will here this one time.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS as it will be deleted

There are numerous ways to point something out without being insulting or arrogant.

Pointing out that someone missed a post is fine, asking them if they have a brain, or if they went to school.. etc.. is going to get you warned.

Semper

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
we do not have the evidence already to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Even though the evidence that would definitively prove what happened EXISTS it has not be released...[/quotes]

Yes, we knew it was AA77 since a half-hour after it hit the Pentagon.

Since we don't have conclusive evidence everything else is just speculations and assumption...

We have all the conclusive evidence. We know AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The question we should be asking is, Why have the videos that will actually prove something not been released?

As you well know, but insist on denying, we don't need any videos to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon. Unlike "Truthers", we deal with all of the evidence and that evidence told us AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Imagine professional investigators standing around for 8 years saying we can't do an investigation because we haven't seen any videos.

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
I'm curious what your handle means ATH911.

My initials.

But I'm more curious how a 8 mile long debris field can be seen as anything other than a disintegrating aircraft. You even admit that it's strange. It's not strange, it's called a SMOKING GUN. Why is it that your cognitive reasoning has taken a back seat to the obvious in this situation?

Because if it was caused by a plane disintegrating, where did the plane go down?

There is also film of Japanese fighter planes being hit and disintegrating as they fell to the ocean with no smoke trails what so ever... (i.e. there must have been a 8 mile long smoke trail)

You misunderstood me, I'm asking where is the long smoke trail after the plane crashed, like this:

This image taken with a mobile phone camera shows the smoke trail from crashed seaplane.

If a 757 crashed even in remote New Baltimore, the smoke trail that would arise after it crashed would be seen for miles and miles.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ATH911]

Well, I am still waiting for anyone to respond to any of the 20 questions in the OP with something other than "you just ignore the answers."

There are 20 unanswered questions in the OP.

They remain totally unaddressed in this thread by anyone.

Saying "you're a truther and you don't understand what logic is," is not a legitimate response.