if a paradox has no answer why is the answer to a paradox "it is a paradox" would that just be a paradox in it self?

The declaration of something as a paradox is not itself a paradox, but neither is it any kind of useable answer - it does not improve our state of understanding of a thing. There are unresolvable paradoxes, and I think a very relevant question ought to be, how can that be? What is wrong with logic and reason that it cannot address some things and how can paradoxes exist? I think that is a deep and significant question.

All a paradox is is a sign that there is error, probably in the assumptions!
All 'falseness', upon philosophical examination results, eventually, in 'paradox'.
A sure sign of error!
Like time travel! It is impossible!
Thus all the paradoxes that appear when the hypothesis of 'time travel' is examined!
There is no 'answer to a paradox' any more than there is an answer to an 'F' on a test!

Paradox just means 'error', 'fail'!

Minus multiply plus is minus.

"It is a paradox" is not an answer to a paradox. It is like a statement acknowledging the fact that a certain paradox, or any paradox for that matter, can't have any answer because it is after all a paradox and like all paradoxes is unanswerable. Just because the line "It is a paradox" can come immediately after the mention of a paradox does not necessarily mean that the line is the answer to the paradox. And btw, Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors :)

There is no such thing as a paradox.Nature won't allow it.If we perceive a paradox,then our perception is flawed.Of course,we can come up with "hypothetical paradoxes",but that is all they are--hypothetical.They have no basis in reality.

Because man seeks to define the nature of a question in lieu of its answer(s).