Why?

[marky 54]

lmao, my statement about reality wasnt about scientific lores, some scientists say the towers came down by demolition some disagree but obviously im suppose to believe the ones that said they didnt come down by demolition because thats what you think. some people say one thing some people say another, so basically what im saying is you think i should believe your goverments story over what others say? why because there in charge? there incapable of lieing? no there not are they. there for reality is only what you believe it to be, and what you believe is what you have been told, and seeing as though everyone is capable of lieing how do you really know what reality is? they lied about weapons of mass destruction in iraq and had us believe it was that reality? no it wasnt my point exactly. and the footage i saw from flight 93 was neither grainy(grainy being the word they use with any bit of evidence that goes against the original story) nor at a angle that you couldnt see the crashsite properly, and statements from people all conflict with each other from people interviewed, the coroner said that hes job was over when he first arrived as there were no body's, in another report the coroner had recovered 44 bodys and identified 11. so which ones are telling the truth? will we ever know. no why? they will not reinvestigate 9/11 and thats all people want. reality is only what you believe it to be. which is why we have to investigate ourselves, unless of course you think i should just believe everything im told? but then that would make me gullible, easily led, and igronant. just like the american public who think there leaders would never lie.

[Engineer]

Hi, I'm a consultant Structural Engineer. There are many Engineers and other professionals with grave concerns over the events of 9/11.

Rather than digging deeper and deeper into unsolvable arguments about the minutiae may I suggest we have a look at the bigger picture….

Let me plant these thoughts…

Planes did not bring the towers down – they stood there long enough for us all to see that!

The fires did not appear to be as hot as may have been suggested by the official reports.

The angular momentum of the ‘block’ that began to ‘fall off’ and then miraculously righted itself over the then undamaged tower below and fell straight down!

The ‘pancake theory’ does not stand up to scrutiny – for this to be the failure mechanism the columns, however buckled, would have remained in very substantial lengths.

There does not appear to be much argument that the steel was removes to China before any forensic investigations could be carried out.

No changes to codes of practice since towers can now fall to the ground after a short duration fire.

The ‘hot spots’ of molten steel that remained for days after the collapse cannot be explained adequately by anything other than Steven Jones’s hypothesis

WTC 7 was indeed damaged by the other towers collapse and the official report shows the damaged structure and shows it as limited to the side of the building adjacent the towers. So why did it collapse symmetrically?

Haven’t times to talk about the Pentagon! Needless to say certain doesn’t look like a plane hit it!

Regards

PS please forgive me if I don’t respond promptly and to all points as I am quite busy designing other buildings that apparently can now fall down at a moments notice!

[marky 54]

i agree with all the above, i was just trying to kind of point out to these people that there leaders are just a capable of lieing just as much as(in there minds conspiracy theorist being wrong) although most of us know there is at least something not right with the offical story.

[chipmunk stew]

[chipmunk stew]

[Engineer]

The hotspot thing.

Thermite or no thermite the fact remains that there were hotspots and the official reports do not account for them - there should be official investigations.

Sorry marky 54 my comments were aimed at the official story guys.

Chipmunk Stew, there is a serious point behind my sarcasm - ie. why after the total disproportionate collapse of WTC7 are there no investigations into the design let alone revision to the codes! This is unfathonable- the Ronan point collapse trigered a massive overhall of the design codes - three massive towers fall and NOTHING.

[chipmunk stew]

[Engineer]

Thanks for the documents - a lot to read, at first glance it appears to lead to more questions though.

At first glance it doesnt seem to address how the towers actually collapsed- all the lead up is there but they seem to stop short at the interesting bit. Let me read it first though.

I look forward to the WTC 7 report

[aggle-rithm]

[blackcat]

Interesting that people are questioning the views of a qualified structural engineer instead of unquestioningly accepting his expertise.

Wait a minute..... there aren't any engineers who question the official event!!! The entire world is populated with structural engineers who all, to a man, accept the offficial version. That's why skeptics of the official version should shut up. Durrrrrr.

[aggle-rithm]

[chipmunk stew]

[Engineer]

Aggle-rithm - the contention is that WTC1 2 and 7 were perfectly strong enough.

What could I bring 'new' to the discussion? People have pretty much devoted their lives researching this subject; I have an interest as an engineer. There is not much for me to apply engineering 'equations' to in a meaningful way and in any case even if I showed you a page of calculations proving this or that was or wasn’t over stressed then you'd just go to town trying to disagree and we'd get nowhere. Also can anyone direct me to engineering equations proving anything in the official story?

Chipmunk - so just how does your speeding mass of skyscraper that you so well describe transfer enough load through the 'truss seats' (photo page 8 of the NIST report)to fail the supporting columns? The answer is that they can’t.

The truss seats were, with a suitable factor of safety, designed for the loading required, and by that I mean NOT 30ish storeys above and thus your falling mass could not fail the columns and thus the column ought to have remained standing proud to some degree with all the smashed floors etc down the bottom - but they were not. The report and photos show that the truss seats failed. So how did the columns fail as well?

Here’s a bit of interesting engineering for you to think about with your 'at least a factor of 10 thing’. Consider the vertical load capacity of a nail in a piece of wood, statically the nail could support very little. However dynamically it can support massive multiples more load i.e. when you hit it with a hammer! There is lots of research going on into this phenomenon at the moment. Perhaps I have bought something new to the table?

[blackcat]

Engineer - The bottom line is .... you do not exist!!!

[aggle-rithm]

[marky 54]

chipmunk stew the coroner said there was nothing his job was over in the other version, nothing means nothing, not nothing but oooo look theres a toe, so therefore the reports conflict which each other meaning someone is lieing in this story, people say they saw a plane, people also say they didnt even see or hear a plane, at the pentagon some say they saw a plane, some say they saw a small plane,some say they heard nothing and saw nothing, i see numerous things on t.v when shown edited out that would go against the offical story, i see no footage of the pentagon crash that even resembles a plane, i see very little debris in video footage at both the pentagon and flight 93(regardless of photos that could of been mocked up easiler and realeased by the pentagon/investigaters). i see the pentagon saying they have no footage of the crash,then i see a fench guy say it was a truck bomb, then i see the pentagon say they do have footage of the crash to prove the french guy wrong, which was time delayed grainy and theres a obsticle in the way to obsure the view,i dont beileve they dont have better footage, i do believe they have better footage as they are the most secruity tight place you can get, i see news reports on the web from abc news and cnn that conflict with the original version of events that were only shown once then never shown again to the public and are not included on their websites, i see two large skyscrappers crumble to dust after being hit by planes,they tell us the fire weakened the steel and that they failed yet the tower had held that weight above for decades and none of the buildings below the impact zone are even damaged to cause failure of those parts of the buildings, i see lots of information on the web about dodgy going ons before 9/11, i see the president of the united states use this event for the war on terror which in turn he has used for his whole term so far to get what he wants. i see illegal wars waged due to this event, the us goverment said it was osama bin larden,osama bin larden said he didnt do it, then footage appears of an arab man claiming to bin osama bin larden and says that he did it, even a 5 year old child could tell it was a differant person if you held a picture of osama next to the man. they give a list of terrorists that commited this act, then there are reports some of these men are still alive, i see wars waged on the innocent while osama is left alone, i see a commission report that dosnt stand up or leaves to many questions left unanswered, i see no reinvestigastion into 9/11, i see no weapons of mass destruction in iraq, i see no proof of links between saddam and osama, i see people trying to find the truth and slatered for doing so, yet you expect me to believe the offical story, i see the u.s and u.k under threat from terrorism more so now than before 9/11, i see terror being used to scare us, i see corruption, i see lies and i see theres something there not telling us, ill never beileve the original version because of all of the above and think its more likely they are lieing to us about something. i see for myself all the time i dont need reports from eitherside of the argument to come to this conclusion i just think back about how many times events and claims have been contridicted or untrue. so therefore untill theres a proper investigation that isnt overseen by some one in office from the bush administration and is properly funded this time, and is not interfered with by the bush administration this time, then the offical stroy will be no more reality then the conspiracy claims.

[chipmunk stew]

[marky 54]

if theres another investigastion that proves wrong everything and shows evidence of its conclusion, and includes statements from all witnesses not just the ones that fit the original story, then yes i'd be satisfied. for some strange reason those that think the original story really think i want to think that it was a conspiracy when the facyt is i dont, i really want all my concerns squashed as that will mean theres no reason to think there overall motives are more sinister for the future. i want to believe the original story but with so much conflicting and contridicting each other i really carnt just take what they say at face value just because there in powe, if anything the fact that they are in power would make it more likely to pull a cover-up on this scale of which is why they need to reinvestigate, either to bring out the truth or put this subject to rest. i dont want it to be a conspiracy to this to much weird stuff going on now and before 9/11 aswell as during 9/11.

[chipmunk stew]

[chipmunk stew]

[chipmunk stew]

[blackcat]

[chipmunk stew]

[chipmunk stew]

[blackcat]

Quoting the authorities who we believe are lying persistently is not going to be an acceptable response to the numerous glaring inconsistencies relating to 9/11 but then again you know this of course. Anyone here could go and read the fairy tales the FBI or any governments agency spins. It is you who spread the CT myths. There are numerous accounts in the press at the time of substantial amounts of burning wreckage spread up to 8 miles from the Shanksville site.

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

[aggle-rithm]

[DeFecToR]

[blackcat]

Aggle-rithm

[marky 54]

chipmonk you just dont listen first of all you havnt settles any of my issues and secondly ive seen that coroner report loads of times although i have also seen stuff that say the opposite to it, so i am not going to be pushed into being easily led by one side or the other, i still stand that someone is lieing who i dont know i can only come to my own conclusions, but the fact is that coroner report has been contridicted.

[marky 54]

grrr chipmink you say talk to people there, i dont need to they were interviewed on the news and some say there was a plane(clips shown) and some say there was nothing(clips shown in the early stages of the attack and never shown again) and the photo's do look like aircraft parts infact id say they are aircraft parts, although having seen the footage i can not be certain from what i see if they are from flight 93 or another crash scene, or parts from a previous crash moved to the site and photoed, now i will never know untill or if a reinvestigastion is done, but with so much conflicting evidence i have to think of every possibility, im not saying your evidence is completing wrong as i do have in mind that it could be true and that im wrong, but i also have in mind if you go to my previous post, some, yes some not all of the things that dont add up ect. so if your right about flight 93 theres still lots left unanswered and all im pointing out to you is there is also a possibility you could be wrong because of all the evidence that dont match up or contridict with each other. why wont they give us a clear video of the plane hitting the pentagon and why did they take footage from the buildings across from it shortly after impact, if they didnt want people to think it was a conspiracy im sure they would show it, unless of course it is an conspiracy and they carnt show people because it would go against there original story. do you see my point even if you dont agree with me?