Do people that deny 9/11 was an inside job know how ridiculous thay sound?
If they would only look at both sides of the story everything makes sense.
sorry I meant they
There are plenty of counter arguments to all of that information and there have been peer reviewed papers published. Go to www.journalof911studies.com All of the information can easily be refuted using real science. More than happy to debate you any day of the week. The NIST report is anti science. Did you know that they admit that they only found three beams that exceeded 250 degrees? Did you know that they found 3 inches of sagging in some beams yet had to use 48 inches of sagging in the computer model to get the desired effect? I can go on all day with similar information. You seriusly need to look at the information before coming to erroneous conclusions. All of those studies make sense to the untrained scientist, but you have to understand what ommiting data does. Debate me, I will destroy you!
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The 9-11 conspiracy theory is garbage. Here's a stunning, knock-out blow that kills the theory:
==> Almost every single expert has come out against the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Numerous articles against the theory have been published in peer-reviewed journals. ZERO articles have been published by the so-called conspiracy "experts." Essentially, they have no name, no respect, no significance. THERE IS NO COUNTERARGUMENT TO THIS. Are the experts all “in on it”?
Here are some peer-reviewed articles showing that 9-11 was NOT an inside job:
Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
The Towers Lost and Beyond
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi
Addendum: Yes, the scientists do say the same thing that the gov't is saying. That's the point. It doesn't disprove the scientists. Incidently, the 1st report that I listed is a summary (as it says in the article) of much bigger report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations. If someone wants to challenge them, go write your own article & submit for peer review. They'll publish it for free. Explain your ideas scientifically. Like they say, put up or shut up.
- 5375Lv 41 decade ago
Somethings need to remain "off-limits". This is one of them. The families of the people that died, don't need this bullchit. There is no way in the world that I'm going to accept that 9/11 was an inside job. To suggest so is reckless. It give too much credit to our leaders. They were befuddled by the whole mess. How in the world do you even suggest that they would cleverly concoct such a scheme? George Tenet, the head of the CIA at the time, was clueless. So was Bush, Rice & the whole bunch. You give way too much credit to them. The other night, a Yale Graduate lost $425,000 on "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader". Are you trying to tell me that the administration in power at the time of 9/11 were smart enough to pull off such a conspiracy. For crying out loud, they're not even smarter than a fifth grader, dude!
- 1 decade ago
Fateridd who talks about "no legal action" obviously is running away from the truth... or ignoring it, like many others. They don't have the guts or the mental willpower to take the Red Pill, and instead would rather swallow Blue from Bush.
People for 911 Truth already DID try legal action against Mr. Bush & others accusing them of direct complicity for 911 - but the mainstream media obviously didn't report it very well (if at all), which is why these wannabe patriots who haven't looked at the evidence objectively have such a shallow, superficial, mainstream view of reality.
The following are 2 lawsuits that I'm aware of. Both were dismissed by the courts, of course, no surprise there - the reasons why are given below. The information comes from wikipedia, and is copied directly.
Legal Action #1:
Stanley G. Hilton (Wiki his name for this passage) is a San Francisco, California, based attorney, political scientist, and former chief of staff for Bob Dole. Hilton gained notoriety and condemnation as a conspiracy theorist for filing a $7 billion class action lawsuit, in 2002, against United States President George W. Bush, members of his administration (including Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld) and others. The lawsuit supposedly had 400 plaintiffs including 14 families of 9/11 victims , with only two named plaintiffs.   The lawsuit alleged Bush administration complicity in allowing the September 11, 2001 attacks. The case was thrown out of federal court over two years later, the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.
Legal Action #2
In October 2004, William Rodriguez (again, wiki his name for this passage) filed a civil RICO lawsuit directed against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others, including a total of 100 defendants, together with Ellen Mariani and lawyer Phil Berg. The RICO Act is normally used by the government to nail organized crime as a conspiracy, but this time it was used against the government itself, claiming a conspiracy on its part. The government filed a motion to dismiss, or at least transfer, the case on grounds of national security.
In other words, nobody can see sue the President because they're the President, and also it's a threat to National Security for the President to be tried in a court of law for potentially being found guilty for crimes against his own people. Evidently, his security is more important than ours.
As for the last answerer with all those "peer-reviewed expert links", I looked at the first one (architectureweek), and boy, is that a load of crock!!!!!! It says the same thing in academic BS language as the Government Official Story: fires weakened steel, floors collapsed progressively (pancake theory).
What a coincidence that the fire weakened the steel of ALL 80+ floors BELOW the crash zone SIMULTANEOUSLY, and all the floors proceeded to buckle INSTANTANEOUSLY once they were hit by the floors above, to produce 10 second free fall speed.
Peer-reviewed experts? Yes, just like the government peer-reviewed itself with its own experts in the 911 Report.
- 3 years ago
I additionally observed the internet web pages published after 9/11, loose exchange and others, and in the event that they have been taken down i might think of it is greater because of the fact it fees money to maintain a multi-internet site internet site, and after such particularly some years maybe the investment will in no way be there. i do no longer think of that faith performs a factor in figuring out that there replaced into some thing fishy regarding the genuine tale of 9/11. Patriotism does. delay the deaths of that many trouble-free electorate and everybody grabs the closest flag. it is not like the Kennedy assassination, the place we felt that we would have the incorrect lone gun guy, or the Reichstag fire, the place we suspected Hitler suited away. maximum persons of individuals have been relieved while the government introduced basically approximately right this moment that they knew precisely who did this. Then there have been those people who frowned and stated, "Boy, that replaced into rapid." So I enjoyed the web pages that indexed the different motives that we would possibly no longer be getting the completed tale. yet to bypass to conflict with people who widespread the genuine tale gets you nowhere, quite at right here. in maximum circumstances, skepticism is an illustration of intelligence, as long because it does not exchange into solidified into obdurate denial. One ought to constantly be open to all comments.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- smsmith500Lv 71 decade ago
People that believe 9-11 was an inside job are the ones that need the ability to look at both sides. I suggest you go to Popular mechanics and read the Myths of 9-11.
- 1 decade ago
It's all just politics if need to I could probably dig up enough fact to make a convincing story either way on just about any subject you put up. It stiill boils down to there being a big difference in somebody in government promising to do something and doing it. they will say or do whatevers necessary to get what they want no matter wether it be for the good of the people or not. AND yes I agree with you on the 9/11 thing.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They were so busy removing the evidence that they are still retrieving human remains near the Ground Zero. Since when does their "pancake theory" blow human beings to smithereens".
The link below will put you at the 911 Mysteries Video on Google.
If you want to download it for free you can at http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
There are other 9/11 videos there also. Most for free or you can make a donation.Source(s): http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
- lxtricksLv 41 decade ago
YOu must be one of these "loose change" people. I sat through that "movie". It doesn't hold up in any way. When national geographic (which I think we can all agree is about as nonpartisan as you can get) knocks down your stupid ideas your time is done. Get a life, have some respect.
- trevor22inLv 41 decade ago
Notice what Bush cheerleaders resort to when you confront them with an idea that doesn't suit their political dogma?
You get called names, and it is really quite pathetic.
How many lawsuits were blocked by the Bush "administration" involving the families and others?
How many times did Bush DENY this country an independent unbiased investigation into 9/11?
How many times have YOU seen a steel and concrete framed building fall because of fire? (WTC7, google it)
How much time and effort have you spent investigating the FACTS surrounding 9/11?
How much time have you spent researching our energy policy and "peak oil" and how it affects our foreign policy?
The truth is, these folks will NEVER question their precious government. They think it can do NO wrong. Governments time and time again throughout history have staged these kinds of events to sway political opinion one way or another to justify some decision that the public would generally view to be unpopular.
Sometimes I really feel quite bad for the folks who don't question and hold their government accountable. But when they resort to name calling and refuse to analyze cold hard FACTS, I no longer hold any sympathy in my heart. The only thing that is going to wake these folks up, is corporate fascism in full force. And even then it may not happen. 30% of this country still believes everything this dicta....president says, and that's enough for him to continue waging unethical and illegal oil wars.
I challenge any of these folks to debate cold hard FACTS. None of this bogus FoxNews spoonfed propoganda. Look at the scientific and economic FACTS of 9/11.Source(s): Not a liberal.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, they don't sound ridiculous. There are a set of facts which back them up, including the official explanation, and videos of planes striking the WTC and the Pentagon.
There are a set of posters on this board who pretend to be 9-11 conspiracy theorists. I will warn you, in the remote event that you are not one of them, that they are part of a conspiracy to discredit liberals. You should not believe anything they say.