But are you two saying the same thing or are you saying different things? Hope this question makes sense.
Oh, that's put me on the spot. I'm not sure to be honest.
I don't necessarily know whether things have been maliciously faked, but perhaps people have been reflecting on erroneous information and therefore arrived at conclusions which do not reflect reality.
The forces involved in the collapse of the two main towers must have been phenomenal, I guess I'm sort of surprised that the forces did not disrupt the ground and cause the foundations of other (more than it did) nearby buildings to collapse.
WTC6, which may appear to have a crater in the middle, 'could' simply be due to damage below the building, perhaps there was a tube station below it, or many sub-ground level floors.
From a personal point of view. I could go along with the authorities being aware of a terrorist attack and simply allowing it to take place, however I find the claims of the US actually carrying out the attacks, be it by setting their own explosives or firing missiles at the buildings etc, to be ridiculously absurd.
The engineers may well have an insight into the forces involved and be able to offer expert opinion on that basis, however Architects are not qualified in that field, or at least most of them are not. So if Architects are offering an opinion based on a subject they are not qualified in, then the actual weight of their opinions should be considered accordingly.
Plus most Architects tend to be a little odd, in one respect or another.
I will add the caveat in, that I haven't studied the 'claims' in any way and the above is just my 'off the cuff' opinion.
I don't know if Handyman thinks along the same lines, or not.
