Doesn't matter if its anti or pro inside job, 99% of the people here don't have the expertise to claim whatever they're saying. Don't waste your time discussing such issues at the interwebs.

my 2 cents of advice.

Me. And I happen to know a thing or two about airplanes. Everybody who do knows that take-off and landing are the difficult bits.

But, ok...I did a quick google and surprise, surprise...here's a seasoned instructor saying exactly what I said:

Clicky

FWIW, I addressed the molten steel fallacy and have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and have significant experience in analyzing failure of steel alloys under load. But as I said before, any undergraduate mechanical/materials/aerospace engineer (or anyone willing to spend 30 seconds Googling or who has any technical intelligence) should know that steel weakens at temps much less than melting point. It would be absurd to imagine a material that retains its strength until it all of a sudden becomes liquid. You could tie a thick, red hot steel bar into a pretzel with ease.

I'm sure you're part of the lower % of people that backs it up with actual scientific data then. BTW, what's your scientific explanation for the free fall symmetrical collapse of the WTC 7 building and the findings of thermite in the debris?

Not implying it was an inside job, just would like to hear a scientific explanation.

I don't know details about findings of thermite, and don't know how unusual such findings would be, so won't discuss that issue.

As far as symmetrical collapses, I don't have details about WTC7 collapse, so can't elaborate specifically (although I know other structural engineers, including those involved with WTC, have already done so in a PBS special I saw years ago).

That said, the obsession with the collapses seeming too "symmetrical" is silly. If one portion of the steel supports of a floor began to give, the remaining supports would be forced to pick up the load - a load well above what they would be capable of supporting, and thus they would give as well. Collapsing floor-by-floor in such a manner would not seem unusual, but rather it would be expected. I also don't understand any discussion related to "freefall speed" of the collapse. Once a floor's support gives, mass falls at acceleration due to gravity. As each floor suddenly fails under impact of floors above, they will also fall at approximately acceleration due to gravity.

tame_deuces I don’t fly and I already know that takeoff and landing would be most problematic. Aim is not a problem, the complicated maneuver that the plane made to crash into the towers was the problem. Also why was the pentagon lawn left untouched given the size of a boeing.

ctyri not that I don’t want to take your word for it, but I’d like to see some independent research and then your comments. “steel weakens at temps much less than melting point” is that your response to “firefighters radioed in thinking the flames were controllable, also black smoke came out of the buildings indicating that the fires had weakened. Give an estimate as to how long it would take for the fire to affect the steel?”

If weight isn’t being supported it will collapse. I image a normal collapse will be more random in arrangement. Will try to find some links showing the collapse and Id like to find pure undisturbed footage. Meanwhile, this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&e obtained from the conspiracy thread forgot by whom, talks about nano-termite found at the WTC. Unless you feel Niels Harrit and Steven Jones are out to smear the USA..

Nonsense, it is not a difficult manouver. I've told you and I've supplied an okay enough link to tell you exactly that because you doubted my word and asked for a cite.

It's obvious you don't want it to be true, and I can't help you with that except to ask you to grow up and recognize when somebody bothered to make an effort to show where you were wrong.

I guess that's the appeal of conspiracy theories. They're elegant and simple and make sense out of a world where some random chaos, lack of consensus on truth and a fog that makes you unaware of what others are doing make the damndest things happen. Sorry to break it to you; the world is a mess and not even conspirators got the powers to make it streamlined.

Thats not enough sorry. the world may be a mess but I can still speculate about said mess when people who claim to be experts dont even stop to question.

I missed the conspiracy theory threads.

The standard tactic of conspiracy theorists is to demand a standard of proof WAY beyond reasonable. When you can't give proof up to their absurd standards, they take it as a victory. It's ridiculous.

I might not be an expert on airplanes, but I know more than enough to know that crashing an airliner into the tallest building of a skyline is not a big problem whereas you don't know anything about airliners, but your pet theory depends on it being a very difficult manouver therefore you continue to claim that it is.

You write me off as someone not being an expert which is ok enough though it's clear you're not even willing to lend me an ear, you don't even acknowledge that the cite you demanded I give exists and now you just repeat yourself.

You also write claim people don't have credentials, which ctyri clearly has, you demand scientific proof when ctyri explains hot steel, you demand layman's speech when he explains somewhat more technically, and you just write him off when it is finally clear his explanation isn't compatible with what you desire the truth to be.

Soo....you're not really stopping to ask questions, you've made answers and seek to verify them.

+1

I don't see a problem in people asking questions, but people have to be careful not to get too emotionally involved when they seek for them, because they might cloud their judgement.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they don't ask questions to seek real answers, they ask questions to be told the answers that they already "know." There's nothing wrong with honestly asking questions. It's when your questions aren't posed to be answered that there's a problem.

The steel weakening is a prime example. It has absolutely been answered to any reasonable standard of proof, but that answer is unacceptable so it must be wrong and further evidence is required.

Also, it's been a while since I've tackled any specific truther claim, but I can't let the thermite thing go. First of all, thermite is claimed by the truthers to be a demolition agent. It is in no way used in controlled demolition. The reaction times are way too slow to reliably control any demolition. But even then, it doesn't matter. Thermite was not found in the WTC wreckage. Sulfur was found in minute quantities coated on structural steel in the WTC wreckage.

That's all well and good. Sulfur may be evidence of thermite. But you know what? All that means is that sulfur was in proximity with the steel in the building or airplane. You know what contains a ****load of sulfur? Drywall. There wasn't much of that in the WTC.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I asked the question about thermite mainly because of this article in the open chemical physics journal which states they found Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. But i don't know about their credibility, could be misinformation, who knows, i dont feel like checking the sources out. I don't really care about the 9/11 incident anymore, it was more sensationalism then anything else.

“Potential commercial pilots training in the UK take two years to qualify.”
-These pilots didn’t know how to fly a small plane up til the month before the attack.
-planes that fly off course are intercepted, why not these planes?
-that is 1 question out of many
-I am lending you an ear, Im telling you I don’t know who this “John O'Hara, Chief Flying Instructor at the BBC”. I want to see some kind of scientific study if you want me to consider your source. I think you have a strong argument though.

From ctyri's link (I only looked at his graph and comments):
Ctyri is a mechanical engineer, whose command of the subject I cannot verify. I did not find his explanation adequate. You guys are just giving me more questions to ask.

Neuge do you know much about nano technology? “Thermite was not found in the WTC wreckage.” Can you site?

I dont know how credible the link

Tin foil isle is THATTA WAY sir.

There's no need for a "scientific study" into whether someone with a little flight simulator training could commandeer a jet liner and then steer it into a building. Basically any expert already knows that this is indeed easy. This is exactly my point about you people demanding proof way above and beyond what is considered reasonable.

This plane crashing into the twin towers wasnt even an original question. The more complicated questions surround the pentagon. I dont think its easy to fly a plane, but I think you guys have a strong point. I was going to suggest attacking the easier questions first, I guess we did!

Of course it was done by Muslims from IRAQ with plastic knives. That's all they needed to get past the LOCKED cockpits.

LOL documents.

"hijackers had knives and box cutters" even more lethal to cockpits.

From wiki: