Here's over 400 architects and engineers that question the official line on 911...www.ae911truth.org
Here's some airplane pilots that question the official story...www.pilotsfor911truth.org
Here's some other folks who have signed up...www.patriotsquestion911.com
I would imagine that there are many, many more architects, engineers, airline pilots etc out there that do not question the official line. These people have the expertise to comment intelligently on such matters, just as much as the truthers: why ignore them?
But, to me, expert training isn't necessary.
I'm sorry, but if someone wants to make such incredible, potentially damaging claims, and speaks with such confidence on the subject, the least they should be is an absolute expert in the field. How can anyone comment intelligently on the physics etc of the collapse if they have no training themselves? You don't ask a bicycle repair man to fix your car engine; you don't ask a surgeon to plan your radiotherapy regime; you don't ask someone without any knowledge of civil engineering to discuss the physics of building collapse.
No skyscraper has ever fallen straight down in a matter of a few seconds for any reason other than controlled demolition. On 9/11 it happened three times. Buildings blown to bits by missles don't even fall straight down...
I don't believe two skyscrapers had even been hit by fuel-filled jets travelling at close to maximum speed, either (correct me if I'm wrong!) Not everything has a precedent. Isn't it possible that the impact of a 80+ ton plane with a wingspan of close to 50 metres would be a bit more destructive than a missile, too?
The NIST report starts with the assumption that the towers fell due to impact of the planes and subsequent fires, and goes from there to try to paint a picture of how it happened. Real science starts from logic...how do buildings fall so quickly and symetrically...and goes from there.
I haven't read the NIST report, but this doesn't sound too illogical to me. Given events x
(impact) and y
(fires), is outcome z
(collapse) possible? seems like a reasonable way to investigate things. If outcome z
is implausible, look for a different explanation. I guess they conclude that it wasn't implausible.
It boils down to who to believe, I guess...and I have never trusted the government or the corporate media, neither of which has any obligation to be truthful, and both of which are known liars, and both of which have plenty of stake in the status quo.
As I've mentioned in a thread elsewhere, taking up the opposite point of view from "the Man/Establishment" as a matter of course is not an intelligent way of living. Not saying you're doing this mind, just that many do, and it's, as you say, a shame.
So to summarise: you discuss 9/11 truth in a manner that suggests you are an expert on such matters, and all those toeing the official line are deluded. You don't seem to be in any real position to speak with such authority, though. You've done a lot of research, sure, but I worry that without the required knowledge and training to objectively comment on such matters, you gravitate towards the (probably minority) views consistent with your anti-government stance.
Please note: I'm no expert either, so I'm not claiming truth on either side of the argument. I think that the 9/11 truthers, as well as the government, have an agenda, and both should be regarded with suspicion.