LowPhreak wrote: 
They're your claims, your fool's errand...


Mind posting evidence that what you call "obvious" really is...and is true?

 LowPhreak wrote: 
Article?   I went to a real live person who passed the series 7 exam.  You can do the same.


OK, Orly, I can do that.  You see, "AA" as short for American Airlines and "UA" as short for United Airlines are airline codes used for ticketing and other airline stuff.  And "S&P" is not a stock market.


If you already knew the guy's name, why did you ask who it was?   Small problem here: stock traders don't use "insurance payout" to settle their debts.  And how does "the Towers" relate to the companies you listed?


Ah...you're aware that the CIA operates outside of the law of the countries it spies on, aren't you?


No.  But what precisely is "the investment firm of A. B. Brown-Deutche Bank."?  There's Deutsche Bank.  There's Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown.  But "the investment firm of A. B. Brown-Deutche Bank."?  No, I don't see it.


What law?  Where?

I'm getting tired of these pompous little non-answers.  Put up or shut up.

 LowPhreak wrote: 
No, nothing here is very official.  And you're too late to the first 9-11 conspiracy theory thread.

LowPhreak wrote:
Every dummy needs a ventriloquist?

Perhaps if you showed me a more complete accounting of what you allege, I may be more able to answer your question.


Like I said above.

Now I'd like to ask a question.  What does any of that have to anything?  Was Halliburton involved in building any aircraft or edifice involved?  Can the jet fuel be traced back to a Bush-owned oil field?  Other than Executive Privilege, is there anything unusual about what they did?

LowPhreak wrote:
They totally collapsed?  Please define "totally collapsed".  You see, I remember seeing pieces of building as high as 200 feet still standing.  While 200 feet might seem small compared to the original height, 200 feet is twice as tall as the first skyscraper, to put it into perspective.  200 feet isn't my idea of "total collapse".

I also distinctly recall another critical factor that you failed to mention: airplanes.

Yes, it is true that no 1700 foot tall steel and Shotcrete buildings have burned to the ground, it's equally true that no 1700 foot tall buildings were struck by fast-moving jumbo jets containing full loads of jet fuel.  Maybe there's a connection between those airplanes and the WTC buildings not burning down.

Oh, BTW, what is the question?

LowPhreak wrote:
Define "official explanation".

The people who I heard using the word "pancake" ad nauseam were TV reporters who are only familiar with pancake makeup.

Call me crazy, but I have this sneaking suspicion that flying fully-loaded heavy aircraft into the Twin Towers was more than coincidental.


Define "free-fall speed".  How does your "free-fall speed" reconcile itself with the physical phenomenon known as "acceleration"?  Where do you get your numbers?  How can you reconcile them with the 15 minutes of time that passed between the first signs of motion inside building 2 were reported and when the NYPD helicopter saw motion outside?


Are you putting forth a theory here?  It sure looks like it.  But as a theory it's incomplete.  Please present me a completed theory, including a definition of this "resistance" that you mentioned.


I agree that there is ample audio and video evidence.  And that is why you should have no problem presenting audio and video of the actual "explosions" themselves.  It would be foolish to rely on the memories of traumatized people who might never have witnessed an explosion before, and therefore would not be able to say for sure that they heard an explosion, or something else.

LowPhreak wrote:
Another loaded question.

You make it sound like a simple task—just drop it in a Baggie and chuck it on a boat.  It doesn't work that way.

There are more hours of video chronicling the rescue, recovery and cleanup at Ground Zero than any one person can possibly view in a lifetime.  The evidence is overwhelming.  There was nothing "immediate" about moving the wreckage.  It took months.

But don't take my word for it.  Go into a south Manhattan firehouse and ask for volunteers to sign an affidavit corroborating your claim.

The last time I checked, Staten Island has never been in Asia, and "melted down" is not an acceptable way to describe lying around, being examined and rusting.


So every cop, evidence tech and medical examiner is wanted by the FBI?

I doubt that.  And it's your claim to prove...or fail trying.

LowPhreak wrote:
Kinetic energy.  A very heavy object full moving at several hundred knots releases tremendous amounts of energy when it crashes into terra firma.  Loose or knocked-loose items can be propelled very far from the main crater by a level of energy that is equivalent to a very large bomb.  The burning fuel can create thermals that lift light objects like paper, and the prevailing winds can carry them far away.


If you say so.  I haven't seen any experiments to see how well "multi-ton aircraft engines" bounce.  Why is this relevant?


Again, a loaded question.

I wasn't there as an eyewitness, but the photos I saw of the Shanksville site were consistent with other "auger in" crash photos.  I also believe the people who recovered the human remains from the site.  Again, their description of the body fragments is consistent with dozens of other "auger in" crashes.

LowPhreak wrote:
Another loaded question.  You just said it was in a documentary in question #13.  So which is it?

LowPhreak wrote:
Do you have anything to substantiate this claim and your "special definition"?  Why would anybody attempt to commit such a crime while the entire world is fixated on that area?  Why would anybody cooperate in such a crime?  Why would anybody listen to a tenant instead of the landlord about something like that?  Why would FDNY allow it, regardless of who ordered it?  What do the people at Controlled Demolition have to say about it?


How do you know that?  Were you in there?


By cutting corners and taking excessive risks, I suppose.  But since it's never been attempted, we may never know.


What credentials do you have to make this claim?  Why do you keep referring to the Loizeaux family business, Controlled Demolition Inc., in lower-case letters?

LowPhreak wrote:
That's news to me.  Do you have any documentation to substantiate any of that?

The last I heard, #7 was destroyed because big, heavy, burning chunks of debris from #1 and #2 and the planes that struck them rained down on the building, setting fire to the massive amounts of Diesel fuel in the building, and weakening the building's structure.

LowPhreak wrote:
As with TWA flight 800, they fell under the jurisdiction of the FBI.  Unlike TWA 800, which turned out to be an accident, the 9-11 planes' flight data recorders (and cockpit voice recorders as well) remain with the FBI.


To maintain the integrity of the FBI investigation, and in the interest of national security, of course.

AFAIK the FDR data isn't made public because the average citizen doesn't have any means to interpret the data.  When public interest is high, the NTSB does do graphical simulations for TV.  If you look for 9-11 documentaries, you might find a few of these graphics.  But these are costly to produce, and the NTSB lacks the budget to do it all the time.

The CVR transcripts OTOH are released as plain text.  Anybody is able to read the 9-11 CVR transcripts.

LowPhreak wrote:
The plane's engines produce thrust, which causes the plane to move.  As air moves above and beneath the plane's wings, lift is created, which holds the plain in the air.


Oh, really?  Where?  What kind are they?  What is the protocol for using them?  (Obviously there are repercussions if someone shoots down a large aircraft over a crowded city.)  When were they added?  (Clearly no such thing existed on 2001-09-11!)


Again, that's a loaded question.

In fact, the area of the Pentagon that was hit had just been retrofitted with structural reinforcements and blast-resistant windows.  This retrofit was a direct response to the Oklahoma City bombing.  No doubt, the ongoing retrofit will include even more reinforcements.