Originally Posted by Conan21 (Post 2639)

I didn't even see all of your responses b/c you do it in such a sloppy fashion.

First off you dubunked nothing about warnings not to fly:
Here was my original question

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?

Originally Posted by Rhandhular (Post 2595)

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.

Originally Posted by Rhandhular (Post 2608)

Ok. Lets do Willie Brown buts lets gets his own words from an interview with the paper you use as a factual source. Willie Brown calls this a MYTH!! It never happened as suggested by conspiracy theorists. Here the excerpt and then the link.



The "myth" has its origins in the night before the attacks, when Brown called "my security people at the airport'' to check on his flight to New York the next morning.

What the mayor got from his source was a warning that Americans should be concerned about traveling.

Willie being Willie, he paid no attention -- and was actually waiting for his ride to the airport when he turned on the TV and, like millions of other Americans, watched as the World Trade Center crumbled.

Exactly how the warning popped up remains a mystery to this day.

It might have had something to do with a little-noticed State Department memo issued a week before that went out in a routine press briefing -- and that former Secretary of State George Shultz himself received -- warning that Americans may be the target of an attack from extremist groups "with links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization."

The warning, however, dealt primarily with U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea -- clearly the wrong targets.

You must scroll to the bottom of the page...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGG9L4KI81.DTL


Case closed on Willie Brown!!

Originally Posted by Conan21 (Post 2645)

I will finish my discussion in this thread by stating that a great deal of 9/11 family victims are either part of the 9/11 truth movement or are not satisfied with the official story and want a brand new investigation. The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission, is one such group that believes in a cover up. It is is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.

Originally Posted by Conan21 (Post 3061)

Hey Rhand, I was just looking at Big A's Questions.

You didn't answer any of them? :confused:

you only posted a link of pictures of tin scraps and paper mache as proof that a plane hit the pentagon. :(

Originally Posted by Conan21 (Post 2536)

4) Why were the dogs that sniff for bombs pulled from the building weeks before the attack?

Originally Posted by Big A (Post 1533)

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 Conan21 (Post 3072)

no links/articles to back up that statement? :confused:

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

Originally Posted by Rhandhular (Post 2533)

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 (Post 2563)

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 (Post 2534)

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 Conan21 (Post 3075)

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

Originally Posted by Big A (Post 3077)

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

Originally Posted by Conan21 (Post 3105)

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?