Why is it so hard 4 Americans to believe 9/11 was an inside job when?

Question

1. A steel building has never burned down before
2. The twin towers were built to with stand more force from wind daily then the force of the plane crashing into the towers
3. Mayor Rudy Giuliani had hurricane proof glass put all the way around his buildings floor and his own air & water supply for the same floor put in shortly before 9/11(why would he do that if he didnt know what was going to happen?)
4. Right before 9/11he twin towers that were paid for with tax dollars was leased to a man named Larry Sliverstein who changed the security in the towers 1 month before they fell...and this same man made millions of dollars in insurance money when the towers fell
5. According to all the papers the terrorists could not fly at all... they were failing flight school but i am supposed to believe they were able to fly a 757 into the pentagon making a 250 degree turn flying inches above the ground hitting the only part of the pentagon that had been strengthened for a terrorist attack

Answer 1

All of your nutty theories have already been debunked kid... Typical college-age liberal brat believing whatever idiotic crap they see on the internet, and taking it as "obvious" fact. Get a clue...

Answer 2

Well Thrace,

If you knew anything about steel you would knnow that fire is used to melt steel and then it is cooled into the desired shape. So steel melting is nothing new, in fact it has been happening this way since it was discovered. If it got hot enough when those planes hit the twin towers YES the steel could have melted.

On your second point even if every single window in the twin towers was built to withstand large amounts of wind having a jumbo 747 crash into them has greater impact than wind and would thus break the glass. If you saw any news station coverage you saw this.

On your third point maybe the mayor just wanted to be special after all he was the mayor of one of the largest city's on the planet or maybe he just wanted some extra security. Who cares. You do not have a valid argument here either.

On your fourth point a man named Larry changing security would have nothing to do with a plane hitting a building. Security could have stayed the same and those planes would still have hit those towers. How would the security in the twin towers in NYC prevented terrorist from hijacking a plane coming out of Boston? Really, come on.

And finally your fifth point. Other than actual passengers calling their loved ones and telling them the planes where hijacked by terrorist, video footage of planes hitting the twin towers, and actual records of the terrorist attending flight school I guess there is no real evidence any of this happened. Oh and for your information the military would not strengthen just one position of a building. It would secure all sides, but I can tell from your thought process you are not military. But once again your arguments hold no water.

The only thing that is for certain here is that 1. you are not an Americian citizen, or 2. You beleive anything the celebrity people or the liberal media has to say. You have not checked your facts and look unintelligent. I would encourage you to not go on what everyone else is saying and do the homework for yourself.

May God bless the USA and the Americian military.

Answer 3

Do numbers of people tell you that something is true? Have you thoroughly investigated it or are you waiting for more people to tell you to. The government told the people within one hour that it was masterminded by Bin Laden. Yet when Rice and Bush were asked about knowing of a plot to do it, they said no one even imagined such a thing could have happened. How do you explain this? What about the 5 supposed terrorists where trained in military installations and the one who supposedly flew into the Pentagon who couldn't even fly a Cessna and the plane never even touched the ground? And the ones who have been found alive? It's not a personality decision about Bush or Rice, it's about the cover up and whitewash that the 9/11 Commission did. And questioning both Bush and Cheney together and not putting them under oath? He's afraid of the truth and not because people don't like him.

Answer 4

1. the twin towers didn't burn down, they collapsed after the steel had heated up enough to not being able to carry the weight of the building.
2. The plane didn't immediately tilt the tower but it crashed into it starting a very hot fire.
3. why should he invest much money in an upgrade if he knew the building will be destroyed shortly after?
4. The leasing most likely was coincident and everyone would insure such an expensive investment.
5. you don't need to be a good pilot to crash a plane, maybe to land it properly but that's a bit different.

Answer 5

1). The towers did not burn down, they collasped. Metal structures have collapsed before, even due to fire.
2). The impact of a 757 is far greater than a hurricane force wind. A stiff breaze will not knock you down, but a punch to the face will.
3). Why not? If I put an alarm system on my car and my neighbors car is stolen, does that me I stole it?
4). Your point is? What major building does not have insurance?
5). All the papers? The pilot who crashed into the Pentagon had hundreds of flight hours logged. What "papers" are you citing?

A straight answer to your question is that there is no concrete, verifiable evidence to prove your inane conspiracy theory. Crap on the Net is not evidence.

Answer 6

Uh...A steel building burned down in my community last week. It was a warehouse and was full of pallets, etc. I went and had a look. The girders were twisted from the heat just like the WTC. So I definitely accept that the WTC collapsed due to heat from the fires.

I don't understand what you are saying with the wind thing-are you saying the aircraft were supposed to bounce off because skyscrapers don't get blown over by the wind?!

My uncle took me up in his plane once and just up and handed the controls to me. After a few minutes I figured out how to fly in a straight line at a given altitude. Therefore I just don't buy it that you have to be an expert pilot in order to fly a plane into a building. However you can believe what you like.

Answer 7

why is it so hard for people to understand this...


1. When was the last time a steel building was burning from a fire that was feuled with burning JET fuel... jet fuel burns at extremely high temperatures, which caused the steel to melt and lose its structural integrity.

2. The force of the planes hitting the building didn't bring them down, they fell cause of whats listed in 1... jet fuel + fire = extremely high temperatures.... melting steel doesn't have much structural integrity

3. ahhh... good ol' rudy probably thought that hurricane proof glass would stop a 757 from crashing through his window... or maybe, he just wanted better windows incase of a hurricane?

4. to think that larry sliverstein has the power to create such a cover-up is just stupid

5. i dont know much about the "conspiracy theory" behind the pentagon... but i'll go ahead and assume you are wrong due to the ignorance you've already shown

Answer 8

Ha, a typical gullible person who's just seen Loose Change. But hey, at least you're consulting people on Y/A.

1 - Jet fuel burns at high enough temperatures to severely weaken steel. The WTC didn't burn down - it collapsed.

2 - It wasn't the force of the planes crashing that took down the WTC - it was the internal damage caused by the planes crashing and the burning jet fuel.

3 - He was the mayor of a city with a population of around 20 million. Why wouldn't he want additional security and a reliable source of water and air in case of mechanical breakdowns?

4 - It's more profitable to lease out the hundreds of offices in a building to dozens of successful corporations than to effectively destroy a multi-billion dollar building and receive what is effectively chump change.

5 - From what I gather, they just didn't like taking off and landing - the least important things when all you want to do is hijack a plane in mid-air and crash it into something.

Answer 9

People don't think it's an "inside job" because all these claims have been refuted.

To answer the points you raised:

1. Saying "a steel building never burned down before" is both untrue & irrelevant

It's UNTRUE because on 2/12/2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. In spite of the fire-proofing (concrete), the building collapsed, solely due to failure of the steel frame due to heat-weakening.

See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It's IRRELEVANT because hundreds of published experts have pointed out that the towers collapsed because of DAMAGE caused by the jets, along with the fire weakening the steel. It wasn't just the fire.

See the lead investigator from NIST explain how the buildings collapsed at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
(Click on “Impact to collapse” )

2. What the towers could withstand:

Leslie Robertson, one of the chief designers of the twin towers, said that the towers were designed to handle the impact of a Boeing 707, but not a 767. He said they did NOT take into account the burning fuel, either. These 2 factors made all the difference. (Popular Mechanics, “Debunking 9/11 Myths” page 31)

Robertson was “racked with grief after 9/11,” meaning he himself was angry that he hadn't considered the effect of burning fuel

4. These claims of “insurance fraud” (because that’s what it would be) are very naïve.

Don’t you think that the insurance companies would not pay if there were the slightest hint of insurance fraud (like it was an inside job). They would not pay out billions of dollars unless everything looked legit. They are instantly suspicious of any large claim. Yet, they paid. Must be there’s no merit in the “Silverstein fraud claim.”

Also, Insurance companies only issue policies that will offset loses, but they never EVER issue policies that allow you profit from an event.

Silverstein lost money on the collapse. So that ends that theory.

5. Failing flight school? That appears to be a made-up "fact." Actually, all they had to do was just fly to a gigantic target. The hardest things, landing, takeoff, & flying in bad weather, they didn't have to do.

No one knows exactly what turns the planes made since the transponders were turned off.

If there is a credible source that they did some unusual manuevers, then I'd like to see the link. Without such a link, I have to assume this story is one of the many made-up "facts" that pour from the conspiracy folks.
===============
Here are answers to other points:

CLAIM: The air defense system didn’t follow the usual procedure on 9/11
FACT: Not true.

The procedure is for the air traffic controllers to order NORAD to intercept a plane once it's clear WHICH PLANE & WHAT is going on.

However, the traffic controllers could not figure out what was going on because the hijackers had turned off the transponders (these allow the planes to be absolutely located).

Even when the 2 towers were hit, the controllers still weren’t even sure WHAT had hit the towers (they thought a small plane had hit the first tower. It had nothing to do with “not following procedures." It had to do with not understanding the situation.

No one ordered NORAD to do anything because it was over too fast. Nor was there any question of a stand down order.

Next, traffic controllers in Indianapolis thought that Flight 77 had crashed because it too had its transponder turned off & it maintained radio silence. A lot of time was lost.

Finally, an alert controller in Boston noticed a flight (it was #77) was headed to Washington. The F16s WERE immediately ordered to intercept it at supersonic speed (going this fast was not allowed, but they did it anyway). The F16s were a few minutes too late & the Pentagon was hit.

As for the last flight, #93, no one even called NORAD due to confusion. The question of whether or not it was permitted did not come up. Also, the controllers had nothing to do with war-games. That was out of the picture.

CLAIM: Flight 93 was "shot down"
FACT: If Flight 93 were shot down, then the little pieces wouldn’t have made that gigantic crater (115 feet wide)

Also, the passengers made 37 phone calls, 17 of which were “successful” (10 seconds or longer). They said they were hijacked. Why would we shoot down the plane? The families testified that they were called. And yes, you can make calls from a plane. Some of the calls were “Airphone” & some were cell phones

Only light debris was scattered (papers, string, etc) by the wind.

CLAIM: The towers were “demolished”
FACT: This theory started with EX-professor Steven Jones, formerly from Brigham Young University. Because of his claims, they took away his classes, put him on leave, & started a investigation of his claims. He quit before they could finish, lucky for him. The engineering dept there, at his own University, considers him a crackpot.

True experts, who have published DOZENS of articles in journals about 9/11, reject the demolition theory. I’m surprised that anyone is bringing this up. There isn’t a journal article on the face of the earth that supports the demolition theory. It’s dead.

CLAIM: WTC7 couldn't have fallen because a plane didn't hit it
FACT: This claim is easily refuted by the simple fact that SEVEN buildings were destroyed even though they weren't hit by a plane.

They are: 7 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center , & the Deutsche Bank Building

Note that St Nicholas church & Deutsche Bank were not in the WTC plaza, but were destroyed by debris from the twin towers anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#Damage

CLAIM: Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profit from the events.
FACT: Actually, all financial transactions are a matter of public record.

The SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) monitors all profit-taking in order to locate insider trading, which is illegal. If ANYONE makes a lot of money, the SEC wants to know why.

Thus, anyone or any company profiting from 9/11 would be a matter of public record & we would instantly know who the murderers are. In spite this, we are not told WHO made all this money, and HOW MUCH did he make, That pretty much proves the “insider trading” theory is gibberish.

As icing on the cake, one of the first things the FBI did was check for profiteering from 9/11. It was easy to do, as I said. Upon inspection, no such transactions occurred to any meaningful extent. Actually, there were a lot of purchases of airline stock just before 9/11 (These people LOST a lot of money)

See Point 6, at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

Answer 10

What ?

Next thing U will tell me is that Pearl Harbor was allowed to enrage reluctant civilians.

Hermann Göring said it best:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Sad but true.

Answer 11

Haha wow this is what Loose Change has done to this country. Turned people into fools. If this was an inside job by our government, don't you think they would have killed the people who started the theories before it got out of control? I mean if they had already killed over 3000 of there own people, why would they stop to cover it up?

Not to sound sick and twisted but thats how it would have happened if that be the case. Which it isn't!