Sceptics re:9/11 only: viable, unanswered questions regarding 9/11

Muckar-duva

Thinker
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
167
If we may. We all know there are some flaws in official reports- there always will be concerning matters as important, but regardless- but what do YOU find, in the CT assortment (or in plain lack of addressing issues from official reports) to be unanswered questions?
 

99074546c81a23400.gif
 
If we may. We all know there are some flaws in official reports- there always will be concerning matters as important, but regardless- but what do YOU find, in the CT assortment (or in plain lack of addressing issues from official reports) to be unanswered questions?


The major one for me surrounds Bush.

I'd like to hear an explanation for his actions. I don't mean "tell us what you were thinking" - he has done that.

I'd like to know what was happening behind the scenes with his staff. What did they determine was the best course of action once they knew an attack was underway? How much did they actually know?

Who made the decisions? What did they tell the President? How did he respond.

And so forth.

-Gumboot
 
The major one for me surrounds Bush.

I'd like to hear an explanation for his actions. I don't mean "tell us what you were thinking" - he has done that.

I'd like to know what was happening behind the scenes with his staff. What did they determine was the best course of action once they knew an attack was underway? How much did they actually know?

Who made the decisions? What did they tell the President? How did he respond.

And so forth.

-Gumboot

That is kind of an intersting question to be asked. I'm kinda curious as to the chain of information that went to the president. Actually, while people like to say the "The buck stops here" with regards to the Presidency, Wouldn't the emergency personell have some more authority, at least leyway, to make decisions? Like would the president really be trained with how to deal with emergency crews & response, knowledge of which squadrons to deploy, etc? Talking to the American People, after the fact, would be his job, sure, but during the goings-on, I'd assume his job was to get somewhere safe, and keep up with what was happening, but hands-off otherwise.

obviously, it's all conjecture and the like, But I figure his reaction when told about the attacks while reading to the kids wasn't so much as not knowing what he should do, but in fact that HE shouldn't do anything, and should leave it to the people who are supposed to handle it.
 
There were reports that the phone on air force 1 did not work. Dick Cheney was next in line to order the military and he was unreachable, because he went to Pentagon crash site to help. VP Cheney was giving commands for the most part. He was probably getting bits of info from the FAA and Norad similiar in fashion between the FAA and NORAD.
 
Im interested to see what the USA patriot act has given various departments regarding privacy issues of which they did not have before, can anyone comment?

To me, before or after 9/11 security/privacy is of little concern to me on the level that I never feel its an intrusion at all. Heightened security and random searches at places is not an intrusion of my freedom, it is just part and parcel of a changing world.

How has 9/11 affected the flow of security and personal information in the USA? I hear lots of gossip but have done little searching myself. Anyone comment? keep it civil.

Cheers
 
Sorry, my question was a bit of a derailment, however I agree with gumboot, be good to hear the issues that went on internally in the office. Even howard was involved at the time, though not that directly. Im sure it would make a best seller. Highly emotional and political decisions
 
Sorry, my question was a bit of a derailment, however I agree with gumboot, be good to hear the issues that went on internally in the office. Even howard was involved at the time, though not that directly. Im sure it would make a best seller. Highly emotional and political decisions

I am sure Bob Woodward is waiting for Bush to get out to publish it.
 
Approximately how much fuel was left in the planes when they crashed?


I believe NIST mention an estimate of UA175's fuel payload at impact in their fireball analysis.

I don't know where those statistics come from however...

I would imagine, for someone with some detailed knowledge, given departure time, total flight time, and initial fuel load, they could calculate how much (roughly) was consumed during the flights (I am, here, assuming the rough total used in a "typical" departure is known).

NIST cited UA175 as 10,000 gallons I think.

-Gumboot
 
I'm interested in more on the idea that some/much of the fire proofing material that was supposed to be used in the construction of the WTC wasn't actually there, possibly due to mob connections with the construction companies/inspectors, contributing to the weakening of the steel in the fires. At least as conspiracies go, that one makes some sense, since it's pretty much exclusively about greed.
 
I read that 9/11 chronology website, which seemed at least to reject a priori nonsense about missiles, and simply projected the events as recorded in the mainstream media. To me the glaring items are:
  • Bush just sitting there in the classroom.
  • No orders issued to locate and shoot down hijacked planes until over an hour after the initial attacks, long after the Pentagon was hit. Within ten minutes of the WTC being hit, and the knowledge that there were two more planes out there, that should have been the first order of business.
Some of you are thinking, "Oh, god another woo-woo." But this is what I think those actions of the leadership in those first crucial minutes indicate: cowardice. Bush and Cheney clearly did not want to be on the line for themselves having killed American citizens, and the result was a successful damaging of the heart of America's military and security resource, and what the hey, the people on the other plane sorted it out for themselves without any help from the government, God love 'em. (So ironic when you consider that was the plane intended for the goddam White House).

Bush and Cheney were derelict in their duties and violated their oath to protect the Constitution and citizens of the United States. It wouldn't have saved 3000 lives, but imagine if the planes had hit their targets in a different order: then the fact that nothing was done to prevent the WTC strike after the White House and Pentagon had been hit, and those thousands of deaths in the heart of Manhattan would have been the first thing people realised was something that was preventable. And I think rightful criticism of the Government's actions on that day would have deprived Bush of all credibility and might even have cost him the aught-four election.
 
God love 'em. (So ironic when you consider that was the plane intended for the goddam White House).
That's my question:

Was United 93 heading for the White House or the Capitol Building? I keep hearing both from different sources, although I have to say that the latter would probably be easier.

...the aught-four election.
And Larry, you get a gold star for using "aught".
 
Cheney did NOT have the authority to give a shoot down order. Only Bush and Rumsfeld did. Bush was in the classroom and Air Force 1 where phones didn't work. Rumsfeld went directly to the crash site when 77 crashed. He was not contactable for 93 and anythiing else which may have existed. They didn't know it was just 4 planes at that time. Rumsfeld thought the attack was over after the 2nd plane.
 
I'm wondering what went on with Bush and Cheney and the shoot down order as well.

And I'm curious as to why the NORAD cover-up happened.
 
Mark Roberts Takes On the Fantasists

I have invited Mark Roberts to appear on 'Hardfire' for two shows (to be taped in December) and he has accepted. I will attempt to find a suitable opponent for him, but I'm guessing that the loons will not exactly be lining up for the opportunity to be ripped, pummeled, and smashed.
Years ago, William F. Buckley was asked why Bobby Kennedy always avoided appearing on 'Firing Line.' Buckley replied, "Why does bologna reject the grinder?"

I'll keep everyone posted on the response of the tinfoil-hat brigade to my offer providing them with a platform for sharing their sacred "truths" with the rest of us.
 
Welcome to JREF Ron!

You could always have Les Jameison back on. The guy had no idea he was being taken to school :)
 
<snip>

I'll keep everyone posted on the response of the tinfoil-hat brigade to my offer providing them with a platform for sharing their sacred "truths" with the rest of us.

Are they allowed to bring bullhorns?
 
I have invited Mark Roberts to appear on 'Hardfire' for two shows (to be taped in December) and he has accepted. I will attempt to find a suitable opponent for him, but I'm guessing that the loons will not exactly be lining up for the opportunity to be ripped, pummeled, and smashed.
Years ago, William F. Buckley was asked why Bobby Kennedy always avoided appearing on 'Firing Line.' Buckley replied, "Why does bologna reject the grinder?"

I'll keep everyone posted on the response of the tinfoil-hat brigade to my offer providing them with a platform for sharing their sacred "truths" with the rest of us.
Try getting Griffin or something.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom