[jobsfancy]

I would like some answers to these questions, because to my mind, the official answers don't make sense logically.

1. why on the home videos made by people on the ground, the planes that hit the towers did not have windows?

2. on the same home videos, if the frames are slowed down, it can clearly be seen before the plane hit the tower, a flash/explosion under it's belly, at the front, as if a rocket was fired, and then how come that the building wall exploded just before the nose of the plane hit it?

3. a plane is made out of very light materials. How can those light materials, regardless of the speed they were travelling at, penetrate instantly an entire building made out of concrete, so the other side of the bulding blows up?

5. supposedly the towers went down because the fire at the crash point was so intense, they melted the steel rods holing the building up. Obviously, this means extreme heat. If it was so hot there, then how come people could be seen at the crash point, waving at the cameras?

4. how can a plane of light materials (see point 3) penetrate bunker quality walls at the Pentagon?

5. why was there no plane debris at the pentagon?

6. it takes a mobile phone 45 seconds to be recognised by a communications tower and for it to lock onto the tower, so it can make a call. A plane travels at a speed where it covers the distance between towers every 30 seconds, so a mobile phone would never have a chance to lock on to a tower, never mind hold a conversation. So, how did the people on flight 93 call their families on their mobiles?

I wonder about a ton more issues with the 9/11 disaster, but these would do for now.

[drislerfottor]

Noone cares to comment?

[viagradiscounttt]

I'm glad to see you also recognize the unanswered questions reguarding 9/11.

You want those questions answered? well so do alot of other people. All I can say, is that it sure as hell doesn't add up. Theres ALOT more questions to be answered than you posted. THe answer is that it was all staged.

This was just used as a pretext to invade foreign lands. This, along with the london bombings and others.

People think it sounds rediculous and it really does unless you look at all the facts. Truth is definately stranger than fiction. This was just another chain of events to help the Illuminati take one step closer to achieving the New World Order and take away more Freedom via the Patriot Act in America.

[Amomiamup]

I'm glad to see you also recognize the unanswered questions reguarding 9/11.

You want those questions answered? well so do alot of other people. All I can say, is that it sure as hell doesn't add up. Theres ALOT more questions to be answered than you posted. THe answer is that it was all staged.

This was just used as a pretext to invade foreign lands. This, along with the london bombings and others.

People think it sounds rediculous and it really does unless you look at all the facts. Truth is definately stranger than fiction. This was just another chain of events to help the Illuminati take one step closer to achieving the New World Order and take away more Freedom via the Patriot Act in America.

Originally Posted by Conan21

That is exactly what I believe as well. While all that you wrote is considered 'conspiracy' in the US, the rest of the world that has free media sees it as fact.

The reason why I asked the above questions, which I know the answer to, is to see if any supporter's of Bush, etc, can answer them.

[WGfg4CCZ]

are you aware of how the London Gov't was running the exact same Terrorist "Drills" the same time as the real bombs went off. all by coincidence?

and the the Pentagon was also running drills about the Terrorists hijacking planes on the morning of September 11th?

oh and also the same with the Oklahoma City bombings?

the real events took place at the exact time and exact location and exact scenario of how the pre-arranged drills were?

This whole Video is great. Its called Terrorstorm by Alex Jones.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=terror+storm

if you fast forward to 36 minutes into it. it talks about what i stated above.

[Preegovesem]

You both gotta hook me up with that crack you been smoking.

[ultimda horaf]

6. it takes a mobile phone 45 seconds to be recognised by a communications tower and for it to lock onto the tower, so it can make a call. A plane travels at a speed where it covers the distance between towers every 30 seconds, so a mobile phone would never have a chance to lock on to a tower, never mind hold a conversation. So, how did the people on flight 93 call their families on their mobiles?

.

Originally Posted by Big A

This is another 9/11 fallacy that the conspiracy buffs portray as fact. In 2001 cellular phones would work at an altitude of 35,000 feet at cruising speeds. Dropped calls were common at that speed and altitude but it was possible and cell phone records bear this out.

[onelovemp]

Your implication that the Commission Report accurately portrayed the correct design of WTC and calling me out about my claims implies that your are denying the existance of the the 47 columns. Again, It's a lot easier to plead a case when you manipulate the information.

Please address the rest of MY conspiracy theories.

[xADMlNx]

Check this one out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03&q=911&hl=en

[MyLeva]

Check this one out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03&q=911&hl=en

Originally Posted by pdogg7

The guy is a demolition hobbyist. WTF? lol

[secondmortgagek]

I composed a short list of just a few of the many issues that shows there was prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack, they not addressing all evidence, and even lieing. So Far Rhandhular has either flat out denied them or has no comment to every issue.

1) Commision reports did not discuss the collapse of the 47 internal columns. Furthermore, they went as far as to say the internal core was basically "hallow".
Rhandhular claims that this is a lie and that the building did not contain 47 massive inner columns.

2) What caused WTC #7 to collapse in and upon itself at free fall speed and why was it not addressed AT ALL in the 9/11 CR?
Rhandhular has no answer for this question.

3) Mysterious building renovations prior to attack.
Rhandhular says this as a complete lie despite Testimony of many WTC employees and security personal.

4) Dogs were pulled from buildings prior to attack.
Rhandhular says this as a lie used by conspiracy theorists despite Testimony of WTC security personal and news reports

5) What are your thoughts about the Manifesto of (Project for a New American Century) that was created by the gov't that listed foreign policies they wished to achieve but stated in 2000, that these aspirations would most likely not be realized withouth a "catastrophic and catalyzing event....like a new Pearl Harbor".
Rhandhular has no comment

6)Do you think it was suspicious that Massive amounts (Record breaking) of Put Options were placed on United and American Airline stock prior to the attack (The exact airlines involved with 9/11). A put option is projection that the stock will drastically decline in the short term.
Rhandhular has no comment

7) What is your opinion of Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC) taking out a huge insurance policy on his building's that specifically dealt with acts of terrorism shortly before 9/11?
Rhandhular has no comment

8) What is your thoughts on Bin Laden being a CIA asset and agent who has worked with the U.S for years?
Rhandhular has no comment

9) Why was the Bin Laden family flown out of the country on a private Jet right after 9/11 when planes were not allowed to be in the air?
Rhandhular has no comment

10) what is your thought on the declasified gov't Document. "Operation Northwood" where they had detailed plans to carry out fake terrorism and then blame in on foreign enemies? these plans included hijacking jets, etc. How do you feel about the US gov't even writing these documents up? whether they were carried out or not.
Rhandhular has no comment

11) WHat is your thoughts on MANY public officials being warned not to fly on September 11th? Mayor Willie Brown from San Fran, Jon Ashcroft, author S. Raushdee, and others were told not to fly to New York. The Joint Cheif of Staff had a metting in New York on Sept 11th but were told to cancell their flight? how do you explain that?
Rhandhular has no comment

12) Why did Norad (North American Aerospace Defense) stand down and not intercept the hijacked planes, why was there so much confussion on that day?
Rhandhular has no comment

Issues that Rhandhular has supposedly debunked:

Big A says there are no plane scraps. In actuality, there was very little plane debris and the scraps that are there are heavily debated as being inconsistant with a Boeing 757. On top of this, anyone joe off the street would have doubt that a plane hit the building going by the unique damnage done to the building. Futhermore, The pentagon released 1 video of 84 total 1year after the fact and seized survelance of buildings/businesses that caught the attack on tape. The footage released looks nothing like an air plane.

Rhandhular posts a link showing a few plane scraps in which popular mechanics said that their experts decided this was enough proof and he also lies about the photos containing bodies.

Big A said that cell phones did not work at 35,000 feet at such speeds.

Rhandhular states that although cell phones did not work well at 35,000 feet in 2001, it still was possible. There still was a .06% chance of them working which is enough evidence for Popular Mechanic's experts to label this debunked.

Pdog posts a video called 9/11 Mysteries. The intro has a clip of a guy who has nothing to do with the information in the video or even the making of the video.

Rhandhular addresses no issues with in the 1 hour and 30 minute video but laughs at the guy in opening clip who was shown for 40 seconds and posts 'lol' and 'WTF'

[avaissema]

no links/articles to back up that statement?

I said you didn't answer Big A's questions

I would like some answers to these questions, because to my mind, the official answers don't make sense logically.

1. why on the home videos made by people on the ground, the planes that hit the towers did not have windows?

2. on the same home videos, if the frames are slowed down, it can clearly be seen before the plane hit the tower, a flash/explosion under it's belly, at the front, as if a rocket was fired, and then how come that the building wall exploded just before the nose of the plane hit it?

3. a plane is made out of very light materials. How can those light materials, regardless of the speed they were travelling at, penetrate instantly an entire building made out of concrete, so the other side of the bulding blows up?

5. supposedly the towers went down because the fire at the crash point was so intense, they melted the steel rods holing the building up. Obviously, this means extreme heat. If it was so hot there, then how come people could be seen at the crash point, waving at the cameras?

4. how can a plane of light materials (see point 3) penetrate bunker quality walls at the Pentagon?

.

Originally Posted by Big A

[DongoSab]

no links/articles to back up that statement?

I said you didn't answer Big A's questions

Originally Posted by Conan21

I said I answered Question 1,5 and 6 but since you do not know how to go to the first page I will repost those for you.

Question 1 was answered here...

I am guessing you got most of this information from the video loose change. Lets take a look at your first question.

1. Why on the home videos made by people on the ground, the planes that hit the towers did not have windows?

I have never seen a clear video that conclusively shows that the planes that hit the towers did not have windows. These claims are usually associated with reports that the planes where cargo planes. Where did this information come from then? The man who makes these claims in the loose change video, Marc Birnbach, was over two miles away from the towers and did not have a good view of the airplanes. Here is the excerpt from the popular mechanics article that debunks this story...

Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=3

Question 1 has been answered if anyone who care to hear more debunking I can continue...

Originally Posted by Rhandhular

Question 6 was answered here...

This is another 9/11 fallacy that the conspiracy buffs portray as fact. In 2001 cellular phones would work at an altitude of 35,000 feet at cruising speeds. Dropped calls were common at that speed and altitude but it was possible and cell phone records bear this out.

Originally Posted by Rhandhular

Question 5 is here...

I'll do another claim that can quickly be debunked..

5. why was there no plane debris at the pentagon?

Answer...

Numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. You can see if for yourself here...

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Originally Posted by Rhandhular

If you read my previous post I said I could answer others if anyone would like me to.

[8cyVn4RJ]

Rhandular

I was referring to the questions you didn't answer.

as far as the the strange looking planes. They have videos on the morning of 9/11 of quit a few witnesses who were saying to news reports that the plane looked nothing like a commercial air liner. I have never seen a conclusive home video either that Big A speaks of either. I'm not sure were he saw this at?? but the fact that many people stated this should atleast be noted. I know this is not something you can really comment so I don't expect you to try to disprove anything.
P.S Marc Birnbach said alot more than what your two sentence "claim" made. Here are his words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7ZYeKuQcE

here are the other questions BIG A proposed that I didn't think you answered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. on the same home videos, if the frames are slowed down, it can clearly be seen before the plane hit the tower, a flash/explosion under it's belly, at the front, as if a rocket was fired, and then how come that the building wall exploded just before the nose of the plane hit it?

3. a plane is made out of very light materials. How can those light materials, regardless of the speed they were travelling at, penetrate instantly an entire building made out of concrete, so the other side of the bulding blows up?

5. supposedly the towers went down because the fire at the crash point was so intense, they melted the steel rods holing the building up. Obviously, this means extreme heat. If it was so hot there, then how come people could be seen at the crash point, waving at the cameras?

4. how can a plane of light materials (see point 3) penetrate bunker quality walls at the Pentagon?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing that I do not understand is, how did the wings of the planes at WTC buidlings leave huge wing spread gashes in the buiding composed of reinforced steel but the wings of the plane at the pentagon some how folded up and did no external damage to the building were the wings and engines should have hit?

[Licacivelip]

I have never seen a conclusive home video either that Big A speaks of either.

Originally Posted by Conan21

That was shown and discussed in a TV documentary here in Aust.

[BinasiDombrs]

That was shown and discussed in a TV documentary here in Aust.

Originally Posted by Big A

Can you elaborate on what the Aust. documentary discussed and what conclusions it came up with or hypothesized?

Did it say anything about remote control planes?