1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

[Neo-Logic]

What I mean by real, is a scientific investigation, not a political investigation. There are too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed. Maybe you feel different Neologic but it's clear most Americans aren't satisfied with the secrecy of the government. Live Vote: Do you believe 9/11 conspiracy theories? - Security- msnbc.com

I would kindly point out that the poll in question is loaded. The poll even says "Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding." Here are the choices it gave people, and in the order that it did:

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day. 67%

Here, you have a fairly easy and obvious choice -- there are presumably many questions that needs to be answered, we are after all, less than a decade out from the event. The absolute here is in the positive, generally easy to agree with with no information.

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.

Here, you have a directed question with pejoratives. The absolute here is in the negative, generally hard to disagree with unless you knew something about those theories.

I'm not sure. 27%

Reasonable people would vote this category given the bias in the language and method.

Here are a few problems with the the 911 comission report taken from: 9-11 Research: The 9-11 Report
Omissions

"Fail to mention" is not the same thing as problematic in my book. It could be omission or accident. The relationship is spurious at best and doesn't lend to any conclusion other than that those items weren't in the report.

I'm not an expert to accurately look at the items you've listed and determine whether or not they're independently relevant, or redundant with what's already covered in the report. May be it's not, may be it is.

 

[Alceste]

I am not qualified in the necessary fields or disciplines to theorize on the collapse of building 7. Presumably, neither are 99.99% of the conspiracy theorists, although they won't admit it and won't give credence to the value of a qualified opinion.

I think you're over-reacting. Not buying the official explanation due to legitimate unanswered questions (like the collapse of Building 7) is not the same as having a "theory". The official explanation itself is a conspiracy theory, and I don't think the evidence supports it. I don't have a theory - I just think the theory on offer is insufficiently supported by the evidence. In this case, if you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker despite knowing next to nothing about the evidence supporting it, YOU are the lunatic conspiracy theorist, not me.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you're over-reacting. Not buying the official explanation due to legitimate unanswered questions (like the collapse of Building 7) is not the same as having a "theory". The official explanation itself is a conspiracy theory, and I don't think the evidence supports it. I don't have a theory - I just think the theory on offer is insufficiently supported by the evidence. In this case, if you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker despite knowing next to nothing about the evidence supporting it, YOU are the lunatic conspiracy theorist, not me.

Perhaps you provide us with a link or two from Infowars or PrisonPlanet, Alceste.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps you provide us with a link or two from Infowars or PrisonPlanet, Alceste.

lol. Actually, I read the 9-11 commission report myself, as well as many different boring essays on the subject of controlled demolition (the only explanation on offer for Building 7, as far as I know) and highrise engineering, the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and an article on its many incarnations, a book summarizing the most plausible alternative story. I STILL don't have a workable theory. The evidence presented is insufficient to allow me to develop one. It's a fascinating subject. I look forward to the day when a substantial mass of further evidence is released (as the Northwoods documents were after 35 years). I only hope that happens in my lifetime.

 

[Ba'al]

I'm not an expert to accurately look at the items you've listed and determine whether or not they're independently relevant, or redundant with what's already covered in the report.

Neologic have you even read the report?

Any further misunderstanding of the 9/11 commission report is stemming from the lack of parallel comparisons we can make and an overactive imagination combined with fantasy.

For someone that admittedly states they know very little about the collapse of building 7 you sure seem to think you know alot.

When they deliver their petition of stupidity, I hope Congress will burn it on the spot and don't waste their time.

I don't understand why you would be so against an independent investigation? No matter what the outcome of this investigation, it will bring some close to the hurting families of the victims who want answers.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Neologic have you even read the report?

No.

For someone that admittedly states they know very little about the collapse of building 7 you sure seem to think you know alot.

Not having read the report is not the same thing as not having common sense. It makes more sense that building 7 wasn't included for some erroneous or oversight issue rather than a mass conspiracy involving government.

I don't understand why you would be so against an independent investigation? No matter what the outcome of this investigation, it will bring some close to the hurting families of the victims who want answers.

I refer you to my post about the implications of the ulterior motive and the real reasons behind why 9/11 conspiracy theorists want another investigation. They're like the birthers about Obama's citizenship -- no amount of conclusion or answer other than the ones they think is the right one will be accepted.

And I seriously doubt the families of the victims are the ones wanting answers, as opposed to the bloggers and the conspiracy fantasizer who like the idea of a good old fashion sexy government cover up.

The answer is already out there and is accepted. It's not answers that they seek, it's something else. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[dust1n]

Not having read the report is not the same thing as not having common sense. It makes more sense that building 7 wasn't included for some erroneous or oversight issue rather than a mass conspiracy involving government.

How does it make more sense that the government just forgot to include Building 7 in a report about the attack and damages of 9/11 (which still hasn't been answered), as opposed to it's non-mention, because there is really nothing to explain why the building fell other than controlled demolition?

And I seriously doubt the families of the victims are the ones wanting answers, as opposed to the bloggers and the conspiracy fantasizer who like the idea of a good old fashion sexy government cover up.

The answer is already out there and is accepted. It's not answers that they seek, it's something else. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I'm sure everyone who supported Hitler thought that the German parliament building was already answered too. The answer was Communists...

 

[Alceste]

Not having read the report is not the same thing as not having common sense. It makes more sense that building 7 wasn't included for some erroneous or oversight issue rather than a mass conspiracy involving government.

Who said anything about a mass conspiracy involving government? I'm only saying the collapse of Building 7 is unexplained. You haven't offered an explanation, but you're suspicious of my motives for calling attention to the fact that it is unexplained, but that the most plausible explanation appears to be controlled demolition, according to many engineers and architects. Now the collapse of a 47 story skyscraper in the middle of New York City is a pretty big "oversight", wouldn't you agree? If you can agree that's a big question, then you can might start considering what may have happened to it, which may or may not lead to speculations about certain powerful players that could have benefited from its exclusion in the "official explanation". There's nothing crazy or perverted about any of this. If you don't care, power to you. Remain ignorant. I care, but that doesn't mean I'm a good target for your amateur psychoanalysis.

I refer you to my post about the implications of the ulterior motive and the real reasons behind why 9/11 conspiracy theorists want another investigation. They're like the birthers about Obama's citizenship -- no amount of conclusion or answer other than the ones they think is the right one will be accepted.

You are wrong. What part of unexplained are you missing? The official story is not supported by the evidence. I know this because I've read the story and looked at the evidence. How do you know what you think you know? Considering how passionate you are about what you think you know, despite the fact you've apparently not looked at any relevant information or evidence, is it possible that you are the more irrational and fantasy-driven person in this context?

The answer is already out there and is accepted. It's not answers that they seek, it's something else. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It is not accepted by anyone who knows anything about it.

 

[darkendless]

• Complete destruction of both Twin Towers in just 10 to 14 seconds at near free-fall acceleration
• Over 100 first-responder reports of explosions and flashes at onset of destruction

Perhaps these 1000 engineers need to look at the safety standards that were bypassed during construction. The building collapsed and would have collapsed anyway due to the heat placed on load bearing columns supporting the towers.

As for flashes and explosions, has anyone ever heard a steel girder collapse, its loud.

In a frenzy as there was, witness reports aren't exactly compelling.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps these 1000 engineers need to look at the safety standards that were bypassed during construction. The building collapsed and would have collapsed anyway due to the heat placed on load bearing columns supporting the towers.

As for flashes and explosions, has anyone ever heard a steel girder collapse, its loud.

In a frenzy as there was, witness reports aren't exactly compelling.

And Building 7?

 

[darkendless]

And Building 7?

I'm not so familiar with building 7.

I just remember discussing this silly theory over the twin towers in 1st year and how the building was always going to fall down because of lapsed safety standards.

Was it the one that collapsed down the street a few hours after the towers came down?

 

[Smoke]

I am not qualified in the necessary fields or disciplines to theorize on the collapse of building 7. Presumably, neither are 99.99% of the conspiracy theorists, although they won't admit it and won't give credence to the value of a qualified opinion.

Holy fright! We agree on something again.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not so familiar with building 7.

I just remember discussing this silly theory over the twin towers in 1st year and how the building was always going to fall down because of lapsed safety standards.

Was it the one that collapsed down the street a few hours after the towers came down?

Yes.

[youtube]LD06SAf0p9A[/youtube]
YouTube - wtc 7 collapse

 

[darkendless]

Yes.

[youtube]LD06SAf0p9A[/youtube]
YouTube - wtc 7 collapse

There are many possible reasons for its collapse. Looking at its proximity its not really a suprise.

Generally, during a collapse (this is a soil engineering principal, i think it applies in structural engineering as well), the collapse radius is approximately half of the collapsing entities height. Therefore, it can be seen from the wikipedia page that the building would have had withstand severe loading from debris, earth movement, residual frequencies and many more advanced load types.

My best guess (i'm not a structural engineer) is that debris damaged load bearing columns in the building severely lessening the buildings ability to transfer residual frequencies caused by soil movement. That and wikipedia says the building too caught fire. This weakens all columns.

I could be completely wrong but given what i read on wikipedia its no suprise that the building came down. Buildings simply are not designed to withstand impact loads of that magnitude.

 

[dust1n]

There are many possible reasons for its collapse. Looking at its proximity its not really a suprise.

Generally, during a collapse (this is a soil engineering principal, i think it applies in structural engineering as well), the collapse radius is approximately half of the collapsing entities height. Therefore, it can be seen from the wikipedia page that the building would have had withstand severe loading from debris, earth movement, residual frequencies and many more advanced load types.

My best guess (i'm not a structural engineer) is that debris damaged load bearing columns in the building severely lessening the buildings ability to transfer residual frequencies caused by soil movement. That and wikipedia says the building too caught fire. This weakens all columns.

I could be completely wrong but given what i read on wikipedia its no suprise that the building came down. Buildings simply are not designed to withstand impact loads of that magnitude.

If that was truly, truly the case, why was 7 the only other building to fall down. So many buildings took so much more damage than building 7.

 

[darkendless]

If that was truly, truly the case, why was 7 the only other building to fall down. So many buildings took so much more damage than building 7.

A lot of them only took cosmetic damage, the real structural elements retained their integrity.

Not really having much information about what was damaged on WTC 7 and how it was damaged makes it hard to give a specific answer.

 

[dust1n]

A lot of them only took cosmetic damage, the real structural elements retained their integrity.

Not really having much information about what was damaged on WTC 7 and how it was damaged makes it hard to give a specific answer.

WTC 4, 5, & 6 all partially collapsed due to damage. But none of them feel like WTC did, which was.. well.. free fall.

 

[Ba'al]

There are many possible reasons for its collapse. Looking at its proximity its not really a surprise.

I encourage posters who are against this investigation to at least do a little research before posting. Larry Silverstein admits on camera they "pulled" building 7 but denied it afterwords. "Pulling" is a term that means the controlled demolition of a building, but it takes weeks of planning and would be impossible to do in a matter of hours.

[youtube]7WYdAJQV100[/youtube]
YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein

 

[Dezzie]

Ah conspiracies... I love them. Especially the 9/11 one. I am one of those people that does believe 9/11 was planned. I never liked Bush and he always looked like he was up to no good. He lied about many of the things that happened that day. He couldn't even get straight where he was when it happened. He tried to cover up all this information with the horribly constructed smirk on his face. Didn't trust him before, don't trust him now. That's my own opinion. I also won't trust Obama until he makes some real changes around here. Until then, I am keeping up my guard.

Best Regards,
Dezzie

 

[Neo-Logic]

This thread turned real dumb real fast.

Alceste:

I am not an expert. Don't claim to be. However, don't confuse my not having read the report and lack of time in the day to read "a" book or conspiracy blogs as increasing any bit of your qualification to analyze the situation better. You can claim that I lack the knowledge on this topic and that is true. My opinions on this comes not from looking at a certain set of data with preconceived bias and non-training to make spurious correlations, but instead on reports by actual experts across multiple fields in a collaborative effort with the backing of the United States government. And the experts, government, and general public that 'buys' this official 'story' exceeds any fringe crowd of pseduo-scientists, sensationalist scientists, anarchists, and general f-the-government-crowd of people in numbers, credibility, and expertise.

I've made myself perfectly clear and I've said all I will on this topic. There are hundreds of sites and dozens of books dedicated to your 'cause' littered with irrational discontent for anything that is officially stated, and you may oblige yourself. I have little doubt that if Sarah Palin can write a book, then anyone can truly write a book.

I'll be a gentleman and let all of you have the last words. Knock yourselves out.

Exiting thread in 3, 2, 1.