Where did I make this claim? lol

Good post Smith!!

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.

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.

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

The guy is a demolition hobbyist. WTF? lol

Updated List
 

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'

I don't have time to go through all this all at once but it appears you are taking the approach of calling me a liar. How juvenile is that? again please show me where i stated anything about how many internal column are located in the world trade center.

Conspiracy theorist like to supress this shot of wtc7 shortly before it collapsed. Note the significant damage it had sustained in the lower right corner...

see below
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg


Captain Chris Boyle, Engine 94 - 18 years on the nyfd had this to say about wtc7...

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden had this to say...


...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Do a google search on the firemen listed and you will find these to be reputable sources. Wtc7 was damaged significantly by falling debri from the towers and this caused the building to collapse.


Picture not working go here to see the damage wtc7 sustained... second picture down.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

These two just make you laugh. The source is these statements are "Many wtc employees and security personnel". Who are they? Where are they? Do they even exist? This is proof of nothing. Many people say these are fabrications.lol

Sure its suspicious but what does it have to do with a government cover up of 9/11?

It was for their safety. They had no ties with him anymore but they were moved to safety so no one could retaliate against them. They were not involved in the events of 9/11.

It should also be pointed out that Operation Northwoods was rejected by the president of the United States. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff that presented this proposal was denied another term as chairman for bringing up such a foolish idea. Why would you use this as evidence of anything? This actually proves the United States would actually not resort to such an evil tactic because the idea was never ever even close to being executed. It was denied and put to death. End of story.

Nice thread, really makes you think. The govt. is so corrupt, I wouldn't doubt anything.........

How do you know they were warned not to fly? What exactly was the warning they received? You should title this one many people have heard that many public officials were warned not to fly? You make a grand statement but with no documentation to back it up it means nothing.

I submit Jon Ashcroft own statement on this subject...
BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: ...Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.s..._ashcroft.html

Another one debunked.

The story...

The WTC did not have insurance coverage for terrorism. Silverstein took out the policy for terrorism with a double indemnity clause. The ink was not dry on the contract when the towers fell.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm

Our take...

Some people have suggested that terrorism cover was unusual at the time, and therefore having the WTC explicitly covered against terrorist acts was suspicious. Especially as it happened just before the attacks. But is this claim supported by the facts?

Well, the first problem with it is that we already know the towers were covered against terrorism in 1993, because the bombing of that year cost insurers so much:

Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html

But did the insurance industry then apply specific terrorist exclusions? Apparently not.

"Even after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, insurers in the United States did not view either
international or domestic terrorism as a risk that should be explicitly considered
when pricing their commercial insurance policy, principally because losses from
terrorism had historically been small and, to a large degree, uncorrelated. Thus,
prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism coverage in the United States was an
unnamed peril covered in most standard all-risk commercial and homeowners’
policies covering damage to property and contents"
http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/...s/05-03-HK.pdf

Other articles tell the same story.

"Some leading U.S. and European insurers say that the destruction of the World Trade Center was not an act of war, and therefore covered under most insurance policies. If other insurers
take the same view, that means insurance companies around the world will have to pay out the $30 billion or so in claims expected by industry experts from the attack...

Claims would not likely be disallowed under terrorism exclusions either, Porro said. ``Terror damage has to be covered because insurance polices, especially in the United States, do not mention this as a rule,'' he said"
http://www.sure-net.com/board/messages/480.html

So it seems terrorism cover was the norm, not the exception. Without more information it's hard to see why cover for the towers was at all suspect.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

At the time hijacking of a commercial aircraft was a law enforcement issue not a defense issue and by the time the threat was assessed and law enforcement asked norad for help it was to late.

...hijacking is a law enforcement issue as is everything that takes off from within the United States. And only law enforcement can request assistance from the military, which they did, in this particular case. The route, if you follow the book, is that they go to the duty officer of the national military command center, who in turn makes an inquiry to NORAD for the availability of fighters, who then gets permission from someone representing the Sec. of Defense. Once that’s approved, then we scramble aircraft.
http://www.billstclair.com/911timeli...ony052303.html

It is fairly obvious wht there was confusion on that day.

Where did I say the pictures contained bodies? I said bodies were found that day. Read what I wrote.

You know you are winning the argument when the other guy starts calling you a liar. lol. Why would I have to lie?

The fact remains that substantial wreckage was found. bodies were found and the planes two scorched black boxes were retrieved.

Now you are making up numbers. .06% chance of working? Where did you pull this number from? Another piece of "made up" evidence. The phone records clearly show that calls were made from flight 93 and it clearly shows that some of them were dropped calls.

LOL. The guy at the beginning of the video is the guy who made the video. If the best set of credentials he can provide is that he is a demolition enthusiast I don't give his ideas much credence. WTF is a demolition enthusiast anyway?

Hi, I am a demolition enthusiast and I wanna tell you what I think... You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this video. lol