ALTRAV,

I don't normally pick on people for English mistakes,

" If your so smart you tell me ...."

but in your case I'll point out that your "your" above should read "you're" (an abbreviation of 'you are').

Now, if you're so smart?

Here’s a couple of great peer-reviewed articles on belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theories:

http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/Unanswered911_ACP_2010.pdf
http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/files/2010/02/MEDIA_USE,_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE.pdf

The first is from a psychological perspective, the second is from more of a sociological perspective:

I thought the model in the first article, depicting the psychological predictors of those who are more likely to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, was quite impressive:

http://i.imgur.com/nR7WRiB.png

So, I did my own model from the perspective of a 9/11 Truther:

http://i.imgur.com/h52nYdu.png

AJ PHILIPS, after reading the attached links I find that so much of what is reported still has that taste of suspicion. I did not set out with any pre-concieved opinion back in 9/11, but because I am a technical person and have witnessed some pretty low life events authored by govt's of all levels, I began to find holes in the whole story of 9/11. Since then I have been seeking answers. My views are largely based on facts that cannot be influenced by govt stooges to try to cover-up the truth.
I am reminded of how many 'experts' and 'officials' spoke of such factors as explosives, only to retract it later. And this was to become the norm. I say again; if one point can be debunked then anything related to that point is therefore questionable. Is that not what I have been doing all along?

ALTRAV,
" if the terrorists wanted to inflict maximum casualties, why ensure that the towers fall vertically when they could have set the explosives... closer to the ground floor and only to half of the columns so the buildings would have fallen side ways killing thousands more people."

The terrorists did try that a few years before, with a truck bomb in the basement carpark. But the building withstood it.

What you claim to be fact is illogical speculation. The plane's impact was sufficient to remove the fire retardant at the location that was most key: that where it impacted. But anyway, 'twas HOURS from time of impact to time of collapse! Plenty of time to weaken the steel. And BURNING kerosene goes up as well as down.

If you watch footage of the collapse, you'll see it isn't perfectly vertical. But if you knew as much about structural engineering as you claim, you'd know there's a huge vertical force thanks to gravity. And the structure is not capable of transferring huge lateral forces. So it was never going to topple over like a tree even with the perfect conditions you suggested elsewhere (explosives on one side, closer to the ground floor) let alone when it was attacked by terrorists who didn't care which way it fell.

As for the Pentagon, do you realise how dumb the "bunker buster missile" claim is? A plane crashed into it, doing exactly the sort of damage you'd expect, yet some people you label "experts" without access to the crash site have declared a missile the most likely cause!

Your snobbishness about Popular Mechanics indicates you're in denial. If they, or indeed Mythbusters, refute your claims, you should reexamine the evidence and change your opinion accordingly. If you still believe it's all a conspiracy, you should explain why. If there's a genuine error in their analysis then you should let us know what it is. But if it's that you're too stupid to admit you're wrong, the problem lies squarely with you; only you have the power to change it.

Not very effectively, in my opinion ALTRAV.

<<I say again; if one point can be debunked then anything related to that point is therefore questionable. Is that not what I have been doing all along?>>

I was going to go through your alleged facts one by one, but I think Aidan has sufficiently responded to them for now.

A couple of points I would add, however, are with regards to your claims concerning the supposed military-style trucks in the carparks overnight:

Who knows if they were even there? Do you have any idea of just how unreliable eyewitness testimony is? Presuming there were even people claiming to have seen such trucks, how do we know they were military? Do you realise just how easily our memories can be influenced and altered through suggestion? The mere wording of a question can cause an eyewitness to recall an event very differently to how it actually happened:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

I seriously doubt that your alleged "facts" have accounted for all the psychological factors and cognitive biases that need to be considered when assessing the evidence.

There are multiple studies demonstrating how bad eyewitness testimony is. There are plenty of tests you can do yourself online. Simply Google them. Furthermore, how would they rig up all those explosives when there were people occupying the buildings round the clock?

Conspiracy theorists like to point to supposedly-unanswered questions, but I think there are far more unanswered questions in the claims of conspiracy theorists, and the above is a small sample of that.

Of course you are seeing all sorts of alleged inconsistencies and suspicious circumstantial evidence suggesting a conspiracy, and had you watched the videos I linked to earlier, then you would see why. Confirmation bias is a powerful cognitive weakness, and one which requires a constant vigilance to avoid.

On a final note, your appeal to anonymous expert are mere weasel words. Which is why I suggested that you provide some links to your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

ALTRAV,
Were are you getting your information? Obviously not from reading like we all have. So you were either an eye witness on the planes or know the conspirators or planners who have shared their information with you. Do not give written sources because you do not allow us to read sources. Reading is out in your source material. Otherwise you are a deluded troll.