Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

[hurdygurdy]

None.

You're welcome.

 

[chillzero]

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?

hmmm... his brother was inside a tower that clearly placed him in some considerable danger.... so he was in the area ..... waiting for news and developments ..... filming the events ...... yeah ... amazzzing.

 

[T.A.M.]

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

Well let me see. They are filmmakers. They are on the streets of NYC covering rookie firefighters when they capture a JET hitting the WTC. Now, it seems to me they would be filming the WTCs as well as the reaction on the ground from that time on. Therefore, the chances of them capturing the second impact, I would think, would be VERY GREAT.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

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

Are you Dominic, also known as Terrorcell?

As for your last comment, well if only CIT and the nutjobs on the fringe were to follow the rule you have stated for the FBI.

We are also trying to keep this thread to questions that are deemed by BOTH SIDES to be reasonable. I doubt at least one side, would consider your question(s) reasonable.

There are lots of other threads to bring out these type of fringe theories and questions...have at it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

How many coincidences does one have to accept to believe the OCT?

Thanks in advance.

How is it a coincidence, that a filmmaker, with camera in tow, who just captured the first plane impact, captures the second impact? I would think it likely. I know if I were a filmmaker, and an airplane crash had just occurred into the building above me, i would have my camera locked on to the area.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, if you contact the EPA, it is entirely likely that there was site remediation and subsequent testing of the soil, RedIbis. Your job is now to call them and ask.

There is no need to contact anyone. The fact that the EPA forced United Airlines to conduct a cleanup was reported in the news:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90857.html

ETA: Furthermore, the fact that fuel was indeed spilled was testified to by the first responders:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...

... Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown: "There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel."...

... Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."

(Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller) can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 * the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground, the smell of the burnt and smouldering trees and grass...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

The suggestion that there might not have been fuel in the soil is an exceptionally silly one. In fact, suggestions that FL93 was not the jet that crashed there are plain ignorant. As a reminder: There is CVR and FDR evidence, radar evidence, airline testimony, first responder evidence, human remains evidence, and so on. FL93's identity is not in doubt.

I would remind Red that T.A.M's OP is about legitimate questions, not long refuted myths.

 

[Reheat]

the anomolies in the radar data (e.g. united 93 on Radar past 10:03 over Indian Lake (also consistent with witness reports)).

If you accept Radar data that has been proven to have been an estimate with a timing error, why don't you accept the Radar data that shows there were NO OTHER AIRCRAFT IN THE AREA, except those known to be there? Cherry picking, AGAIN to fit your delusions?

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?

Perhaps the FBI is smarter than you are.

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

Oh, Sorry, I didn't realize you were an expert investigator. You must be on of them there CIT, the world's foremost fake investigative clowns?

Note to T.A.M. - I won't pursue this unless this idiot persists....

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

Again, these aren't very interesting questions. The implications of any answers to these questions, regardless of what they may be, are essentially: "so what?"

I suspect the only purpose of this type of question is to raise doubt, rather than making any real attempt to get useful information. This thread is about reasonable questions that are straightforward, have no hidden agenda, and are a sincere effort to learn something we don't already know.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Was there a soil analysis done at Shanksville? And what were the results of those tests?

Did Columbia REALLY break up on re-entry, or were the debris and body parts planted across hundreds of square miles?

Did the Titanic REALLY sink, or was it planted on the ocean floor?

Was New Orleans REALLY flooded by Katrina, or was all that water planted by FEMA?

Was Kennedy REALLY shot, or was the bullet just planted there?

Did Monica Lewinsky REALLY perform oral sex on Clinton, or was....

never mind. You get the idea.

 

[RedIbis]

There is no need to contact anyone. The fact that the EPA forced United Airlines to conduct a cleanup was reported in the news:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90857.html

ETA: Furthermore, the fact that fuel was indeed spilled was testified to by the first responders:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

The suggestion that there might not have been fuel in the soil is an exceptionally silly one. In fact, suggestions that FL93 was not the jet that crashed there are plain ignorant. As a reminder: There is CVR and FDR evidence, radar evidence, airline testimony, first responder evidence, human remains evidence, and so on. FL93's identity is not in doubt.

I would remind Red that T.A.M's OP is about legitimate questions, not long refuted myths.

My question was specific and legitimate. Only one of your links addresses the soil tests and this is what the article states:

Soil sampling areas included the excavated pit, the area surrounding the pit and the backfill material.

"The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation," Duritsa said.

The material was in an area most likely to be contaminated by jet fuel, he said.

"Tests showed the area is considered safe," Duritsa added.

Soil sampling was conducted in a grid pattern and samples were collected down to 6 inches, according to the DEP. A geoprobe was used throughout the crash site to evaluate deeper impacts. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells installed in the zone.

Not much mention of jet fuel contamination. Was there any follow up report that released the results of the groundwater samples?

 

[RedIbis]

Did Columbia REALLY break up on re-entry, or were the debris and body parts planted across hundreds of square miles?

Did the Titanic REALLY sink, or was it planted on the ocean floor?

Was New Orleans REALLY flooded by Katrina, or was all that water planted by FEMA?

Was Kennedy REALLY shot, or was the bullet just planted there?

Did Monica Lewinsky REALLY perform oral sex on Clinton, or was....

never mind. You get the idea.

Please don't derail the purpose of this helpful thread with this kind of nonsense.

I hope a moderator or TAM will remind those who are straying way off the track here.

 

[BigAl]

hmmm... his brother was inside a tower that clearly placed him in some considerable danger.... so he was in the area ..... waiting for news and developments ..... filming the events ...... yeah ... amazzzing.

You apparently don't know documentary film makers and news people in general. These are people that run towards disaster because it makes good video and the want to tell a story.

 

[Reheat]

"Tests showed the area is considered safe," Duritsa added.

In your own words explain what this means, Red.

 

[BigAl]

How many coincidences does one have to accept to believe the OCT?

Thanks in advance.

When one was an eyewitness and/or knows the massive amount of evidence there is that is consistent with the basic standard story, there are no "coincidences" just lots of facts.

 

[RedIbis]

In your own words explain what this means, Red.

Sounds like there wasn't much contamination.

 

[BigAl]

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?

Political stonewalling and compromise. That's the American way and always has been The system could be much worse.

So what?

 

[BigAl]

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?

Source?

 

[BigAl]

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?

Have you seen the entire film? Do you know any sports cameramen?

The noise of the jet gave several seconds advnace notice of where the jet came from and was going to and any good cameraman would have caught it.

 

[chillzero]

You apparently don't know documentary film makers and news people in general. These are people that run towards disaster because it makes good video and the want to tell a story.

Yeah ... you know that I don't find it strange that the Naudets were filming, don't you? Perhaps my sarcasm didn't come across so well in that one post?

 

[Reheat]

Sounds like there wasn't much contamination.

How much contamination should there have been?