I don't know if it was an inside job, but I'm convinced that what the world has been told officially is wrong. Neither office fires nor jet fuel can melt structural steel, yet molten steel was involved. Very curious indeed.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." .

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer.

Nano
Never mind opinions - let's consider the facts

Jet fuel has an open air burning temperature of 260-315 degC
The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt is 1130 degC

There is simply no doubt that burning jet fuel will not melt steel.
That is a scientific fact - not any opinion.

Heat capacity (usually denoted by a capital C, often with subscripts) is a measurable physical quantity that characterizes the ability of a body to store heat as it changes in temperature. It is defined as the rate of change of temperature as heat is added to a body at the given conditions and state of the body (foremost its temperature). In the International System of Units, heat capacity is expressed in units of joules per kelvin. It is termed an "extensive quantity" because it is sensitive to the size of the object (for example, a bathtub of water has a greater heat capacity than a cup of water). Dividing heat capacity by the body's mass yields a specific heat capacity (also called more properly "mass-specific heat capacity" or more loosely "specific heat"), which is an "intensive quantity," meaning it is no longer dependent on amount of material, and is now more dependent on the type of material, as well as the physical conditions of heating." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capaci…

"In physics, thermal conductivity, k, is the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat.

It is defined as the quantity of heat, Q, transmitted in time t through a thickness L, in a direction normal to a surface of area A, due to a temperature difference ΔT, under steady state conditions and when the heat transfer is dependent only on the temperature gradient.

Thermal conductivity = heat flow rate × distance / (area × temperature difference) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity

So, the problem here is not strictly one of temperature, but how much heat was being pumped into the steel, versus how quickly it could conduct that heat to other areas to cool itself down. If the steel conducts heat away from the fire faster than it is being pumped into the steel, the steel remains rigid. If heat is pumped into the steel faster than it can be conducted away, the temperature of the steel RISES ABOVE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FIRE, eventually reaching the plastic deformation (softening) temperature. At that point, the steel girders deform, and the rest is purely momemtum (mass times velocity)

Gerald despite everything I cannot countenance that the destruction of WTC Buildings 1 2 and 7 and part of the Pentagon was an inside job.

I am with you on the greatest scam perpetuated on the Human Race based on 0.039302% CO2, but not 9/11.

We can talk about how such tall buildings landed in their own footprint till the cows come home but unfortunately for the conspiracy theorist that was down to their design. Their strength was in their steel outer walls which, as the buildings fell, peeled open like an eggshell containing the debris

You can see here one of the buildings being built



The real reason.

For a great many and varied reasons - some in ancient history - some religious extremists believed that it was worth sacrificing their lives and the lives of many innocent people in the Buildings and Planes by hijacking and flying 2 passenger jet planes into the WTC buildings with another into the Pentagon and a 4th hijacked passenger plane being downed before reaching it's intended target.

If you slice through a quarter mile high building 1/3 of the way from the top, weaken the structure beneath it though physical impact and fire, eventually the weight of the building above produced the horror, seared now into the collective mind, that we witnessed on the 11th September 2001.


What we have to come to terms with is that it happened.

Understand what would drive someone to carry that through.

As One Mankind strive to rise above our, clearly there for all to see, barbaric nature.

Only then...