I could give you at least another 100 Structural Steel experts with PHD's, HNC's ...all different nationalities. 
I've worked in the Oil/Gas/Energy industry for over 40 years and specialist in Structural Steel purchase ...
Jet-A1 fuel cannot burn with high enough temp to melt or substanyially weaken structural Steel !
Here's some more :-
911 Truth: NYFD (New York Fire Dept.) say Explosives brought down Towers !

And who's to say that, as Senyatta suggested, that these weren't put in place by the terrorists?

Experts disagree with each other all the time.

Akabula wrote:

like those holographic passenger jets

Got to be the best yet and that's saying something given the level of stupidity on here.

I think you have misread my post, sir.  I was, albeit rather politely, disparaging the concept of fake aircraft, not endorsing it.

Getting drawn in again! It's a conspiracy.
I accept that there are 'issues' but to describe the whole thing as being down to 'an inside job' is outlandish in the extreme

Didn't we recently talk about this subject at length on another thread, Akabula?

Now you're talking, sir, something I really know about!

Been reading a bit about this lately.  Might sound crazy, but I didn't even know about the 3rd tower that fell down!  That ain't right, no effing way!

Apparently they were reporting what reuters had reported after they got about to collapsed (it had been sealed of because of concerns it would fall) mixed up with it had collapsed.

Btw I believe there is a cover up on some scale too, there is a lot of stuff that doesn't add up, like the  F-16s jets that had gone miles out to sea. But hard evidence of anything is hard to come by.

Very interesting video about the planes impact..I must admit to not realising the points they raise, until now.

'You tube - conclusive proof the 9/11 planes were not real'.

What do you mean? - I think he means this.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5_bWt45h0

wouldn't it be wonderful if we knew the truth one way or another?
of course it would,alas it aint gonna happen

Good afternoon, Injera.  I hope you are well, sir.

Many thanks for the video recommendation, I watched it last night with interest.  As mentioned in an earlier chat with Akabula, however, the holographic aircraft debate remains a bridge too far for me.  Apologies for sounding overly dismissive, but most of the theories propounded in the recording are nonsense in my view, an unwelcome distraction to the far more disturbing issues of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 and their subsequent implosions.  Granted, the sight of flight 175 appearing to melt into the south tower is inexplicable to many an armchair physicist but it's nothing more than an optical illusion, a trompe l'oeil as the French would have it.  The building (exactly as engineered) withstood the impact remarkably well, what we witnessed was the plane collapsing in on itself against the substructure.  Something like the car in this Mythbusters clip (fast forward to 3:20):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8xTqTUGCY

I live in New York for part of the year and know folk who actually saw the second crash in person.  The tragic fact is that a large jet was flown into a skyscraper as an act of terrorism and to suggest otherwise is not only fallacious, it is disrespectful to the murdered passengers.  To give the program's producers some small credit, their assertion regards airspeed at sea level does appear perfectly valid.  Does the official report maintain that the imapct was at 550 mph?  I have no idea, personally, but the engineers' testimony at Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce seem irrefutable.

Evening Poker. Well thanks. You?

Thanks for your link. The impact on the car was at over 600mph and involving a flat, chunky object. The planes have flimsy wings (relatively) which surely break off at impact.

Yes, the planes were said to be travelling over 500mph by the official report but this is apparently impossible at such a low height, given the 'heavy' air.

I have no desire to tarnish the memory of victims but there are so many unanswered questions. The relatives of the lost deserve to have a creditable enquiry which has never happened.

Do you think the 3 towers were demolished or collapsed as a result of fire?

Yes, very well thank you. 

I wasn't for a moment suggesting you were being disrespectful, sir, rather the producers' notion that the aircraft wasn't real.  Aluminium wings wouldn't necessarily break off on impact just because they are relatively flimsy when compared with reinforced concrete, even water will penetrate such materials if it's travelling fast enough.  The plane folded in on itself like a concertina against the tower's substructure, resulting in the illusion of melting we have all witnessed.

Do I believe the three towers were demolished or collapsed as a result of the aircrafts' impact and subsequent fires?  I contend that all three buildings were deliberately demolished by some form of explosive implosion.  I have explained the reasons for such beliefs at length on here and another earlier thread entitled German documentary about 911.  I'll have a look in the archives and resurrect it for you, sir.

http://goo.gl/naikLJ

How time flies!