Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

Reheat said:
ua 93
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

How does that explain:

*Susan's position south of the crater (her flight path has the plane flying Northeast, contradicting the official path).

*It is a solid white plane.

*No rivets.

*Maneuvores impossible for a 757 (going under the powerlines and over the trees).

*Smaller than a 757.

*Silent.

youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
That's what he was getting at.

I forget which thread, but yes, he has suggested such in the past.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting angle. If nothing else it's different and a bit more scientific of a question than we normally get around these parts.

Unfortunately it has the distinction of being just as baseless as the rest.

I'd say with the angle and force of impact, whatever fuel wasn't instantly vaporized in the initial fireball would have quickly burned off in a wide-open outdoor setting with infinite oxygen available.

I'm reasonably certain you'd see anomalies in the soil as compared to one that hadn't had an airliner plow into it.
 
Ozric said:
Are you kidding?

How does that explain:

*Susan's position south of the crater (her flight path has the plane flying Northeast, contradicting the official path).

*It's is a solid white plane.

*No rivet's.

*Maneuvores impossible for a 757 (going under the powerlines and over the trees).

*Smaller than a 757.

*Silent.

youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like every UFO sighting I ever read, actually.
 
BenBurch said:
Sounds a bit like every UFO sighting I ever read, actually.
Click to expand...

So back to my original question:

If we have an unidentified plane, why the hell hasn't there been an investigation into what it was?

By the way, Susan McElwain has been greatly disturbed by the lack of response from officials regarding her account.

Great job hiding behind your computer screen and equating her to a "ufo nut".

Another question:

Why did the FBI agent who talked to Susan condescendingly say "you don't know what a 757 looks like" when she described the white UAV-like plane?

The FBI's job is to record the evidence, not tell the witnesses what they saw!

Source for FBI story:

youtube.com/watch?v=xsCh_UGKvSc&feature=related
 
Great thread still, tam.

So if catching the first strike on the tower was just luck. How much luck was involved in also catching the airplane strike on the south tower by the Naudets?

KreeL
 
In the documentary, Jules Naudet was already inside the north tower. Gideon Naudet just happened to capture the second strike. Wow! He was waiting under the tower on the side that was hit with his camera ready. Amazing coincidence?
 
BenBurch said:
As I said, a UFO sighting. Any reason to assume its even slightly credible?
Click to expand...

As I said in my first post: how about the multiple corroboration of a small white plane in the same place at the same time from many different vantage points (btw, its not a UFO- its a UAV) and the anomolies in the radar data (e.g. united 93 on Radar past 10:03 over Indian Lake (also consistent with witness reports)).

So Ben, perhaps you can answer this:

Why did the FBI agent who talked to Susan condescendingly tell her "you don't know what a 757 looks like" when she described the white UAV-like plane?

The FBI's job is to record the evidence, not tell the witnesses what they saw!
 
You guys are missing the most important questions about 9/11.

Why did the president wait so long to start an official investigation (9/11 Commission) ?


Why didn't the 9/11 Commissioin receive the time and money required to do a proper investigation?
 
Last edited:
Ozric said:
JoeyDonuts:

See post 126.
Click to expand...

Can't see YouTube videos at work. And besides, it's a piss-poor excuse for evidence anyway. I was looking for perhaps an interview with the woman herself in its entirety where she describes the encounter, a copy of her statement from the interview - you know. Something in its original context that hasn't been cherry-picked all to hell.

Too much?
 
What was in Sandy Berger's pants?

Here's a question that I find legitimate.

March 12, 2007 12:00 AM

A Tale of Two Crimes
Berger and Libby.

By Michael Barone

The first of these criminal proceedings, not much noticed, was the plea bargain of former national security adviser Sandy Berger for removing classified documents from the National Archives, where he had been reviewing them under the authorization of Bill Clinton in preparation for testimony about 9/11.

What he admitted to doing, after first denying it, is extraordinary. On multiple occasions he removed documents from the room where he was reading them, concealed them in his pants and socks, hid them at a construction site outside the building, took them home, and, in some cases, destroyed them.

Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments that could have looked bad in light of what happened on September 11. I have known Berger more than 30 years and find it unlikely that he would have done something like this on his own.

Did Bill Clinton ask him to destroy documents that would make him look bad in history?
Click to expand...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5NjMzNDU4MmY2YTBjYTQxNTI5ZTFjZjFkNTMzNWI=
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
How could Bill Clinton autorise anything after he was out of office?
Click to expand...

I don't know. That's not the question.

Berger was forced to plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to a serious crime involving national security. What documents did he destroy? They may have involved 9/11 or they may have involved earlier incidents like the bombings of the Cole or the embassies in E Africa, which also involved al qaeda. Who knows?
 
How many coincidences does one have to accept to believe the OCT?

Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom