Thanks to everyone for the welcome. I think you'll find that I'm not one to present outlandish propositions without evidence. However, I cringe every time someone defers to an "expert" or "official" explanation without probing that position for flaws.
One question about the CGI video linked above. In your opinion, does it accurately reflect the decent of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon?
I appreciate your refusal to accept things on face value, but let me play the opposite. I cringe every time I see someone with no education in a particular field, try to pick apart a theory or opinion in that field simply because it "flys in the face" of what they feel is "logical". Not all things are so easy to "pick apart" sometimes in matters of science, things do "fly in the face" of logic. The more complex an event, the more likely that standard logic cannot be applied, in terms of simplistic explanations.
I am a health professional, and If someone brings in an opinion on a health related topic, than I am on it for flaws and what not, but if someone brings in a paper on the collapse of WTC1&2, who the F&*K am I to comment, except through my assh&le, on the points of materials engineering, structural engineering, etc..., in that paper?
here is an example:
When you go to the doctor, you trust what he has to say. Now if his opinion or conclusion is completely off the wall, like he tells you that your cough means you have cancer, just from listening to your chest, then yes, investigate him, as he is likely a quack. But if he tells you that you have cancer because of your history as a 2ppd smoker, a chronic cough with hemoptysis, weight loss, and a mass on Chest XR, than I think you will take his word for it, would you not? If he then brings in a pathologist, an expert in tissue diagnosis, into it, and he gets a lung biopsy which confirms it, are you going to then go and question that as well, wasting valuable time to operate and remove the tumor, or get chemo, or are you going to get the damn mass out of your lung as soon as possible?
At some point, you have to trust the experts, that is why they took those years of schooling. They have years of education in that particular field, and I am sorry, but basic college physics doesnt cut it, making you or anyone else an expert on Building collapse.
Probe, yes, but the flawed approach of assuming the experts are wrong until proven right is illogical. We should assume they are right until someone who is also educated in the given field points out flaws, and then we need to have the opinion or paper reevaluated.
It is like those who come in here and say that the engineers who confirm the official story of WTC collapse are wrong because the buildings fell at near free fall.
Who the hell am I, or anyone else without training in the field of structural engineering, to say this. Does one really think that the equation is as simple as "building fell nearly at free fall, therefore could not have been due to fires and impact alone". The complexity of the collapse is beyond simple physics, beyond simple logical analysis...it is COMPLEX!!!
Sorry, I am rambling and ranting. I will leave you with a quote we often use in my profession to sort the good from the bad wrt medical students.
"I would much rather a student admit to me that he does not know something, than for him to act like he does, but in fact does not."
TAM
He is acting very polite though, like he was when I spoke with him trough PM, I wish he would do that more on his forums, instead of banning people who dissagree.
