There are considerably more than your 70 "professionals" associated with "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and military officers (some with advanced degrees in engineering) listed on the "PatriotsQuestion911 " websites that I've linked to already (and more at "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice," etc.) but rather than letting the "experts" do your thinking for you, I wonder if you could consider the following:911 was an inside job, "Bill Christison's criticism " "LT. COL. SHELTON LANKFORD, U.S. Marine Corps – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot" Once again need I point out that your two main sources here express opinions and not based on any extensive science or understanding of structural or chemical engineering, architectural sciences, aviation ,and related fields.
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/ ... "POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military."
Quite an impressive diversity of scientific and military specialists and experts . You haven't come close to mustering the equivalent amount of scientific and military support for your 9/11 denier claims.
Thought experiment: Suppose you have the top floor of a building suspended above the ground at the same height that it would normally be but with nothing underneath it. Would you expect that floor to fall more quickly, at the same rate, or more slowly than an identical top floor perched on a stack of lower floors that up to that moment has done a pretty good job of holding that top floor in place, although now the lower floors have sustained some damage?
Thought experiment 2: Suppose you were standing on the perimeter of the roof of World Trade Center Building 7 on that fateful afternoon of 9/11. Doesn't matter where on the edge of the roof -- you pick a spot. Suppose you had a bowling ball with you. Now, suppose you dropped that bowling ball off the edge of the roof at the exact moment that the roof-line of the building started to drop. Which do you suppose would drop faster, you (with that 47-story steel frame building underneath you) or the bowling ball (with nothing but air resistance to slow its drop)?
Thought experiment 3: If a popular magazine publishes an essay that "debunks" alternative theories in Feb. 2005, but the lead investigator in the government's "investigation" (still open at the time) is quoted in March of 2006 in New York Magazine admitting that "But truthfully, I don’t really know [what caused the demise of WTC-7]. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7," should you have complete confidence in and continue to link to this 2005 article as if it conclusively dispels critics of the official conspiracy theory?
And what about all that very sophisticated "active thermitic material" and incendiary residues documented in that peer-reviewed paper in April 2009?
Can you not SEE it yourself?!