Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

The question has been answered by just about everyone, yet I reiterate:

I'd be placing my bets on the guys who said they were gonna do it, were reported doing, then took credit for it. What could the government possibly have to gain from blowing up it's own buildings, killing thousands of it's own citizens, then giving thousands of other citizens asthma and cancer from the dust and debris?

Who said it was the government and that they were to gain anything from such actions. How about people who happen to hold government positions acting for their own interest? Are we to say that everyone who holds a government position is to be trusted so that we take their word when THEY report what OTHERS have supposedly said? Do they have the ability, technology, means etc. to make reports, videos, etc. seem like an entity has said or acted in a way that isn't the actual reality?

When someone really wants to know the whole truth of a matter, they search, study or investigate until they are satisfied that ALL of the facts lead to the same conclusion.

Those who make fun of others or put them because they want to know the truth of a subject especially as serious as this are displaying a lack of compassion for their neighbor. How American is that? People who are after the truth encourage others to look in to the subject deeper, as the more involved, the more of the truth that will be revealed or the more that what has already been said/revealed is confirmed.

Who would benefit from this scenario? Who was the one who collected over $3.5 billion from the damage to the buildings? Was this person directly involved? If not, couldn't they have been advised by entities who were involved so both parties could profit?

I'm all for researching the facts so that you can come to your own conclusion. However, the true benefit comes when you research both sides of the story, then come to a LOGICAL conclusion.

This isn't to say I agree with either side of the debate in this topic. What I mean is the only person who should be arguing is the person who has researched both sides and found credible evidence to support their conclusions.

Someone's website is not a credible piece of evidence. Credible sources mainly include articles, news reports, etc. Not videos like Loose Change (of which many of the "facts" they present in the movie have been proven to be false or misleading, or so I have read from a credible source) or other conspiracy theory videos. Some may say this is ignoring evidence or whatever, but if you look at the conclusions that some (not all) of those documentaries make, there is very little logic in them.

Anyways, that pretty much decides what side I'm on. But, like I said, if one researches both sides of the story from credible sources then they can come to their own logical conclusion in order to form an opinion with a solid foundation.

My problem being that there is no credible source in favor of the other opinion

we were not told the truth about 9/11. ask questions. like why is there no video of the plane hitting the pentagon with more than 5 frames. the fact that the public doesnt ask questions or just believes what the media and goverment tell them makes me more sick then when i [edited]. also why did bush always say there was no way any one could have predicted that happening???? why the ef not?

I'm just gonna assume the pentagon is not constantly being filmed...


...First of all, you really can't take much of what Bush said to heart. Second...um...yeah, how could anyone predict it? (Being terrorists or someone else. It really seems unlikely that someone planning something like this would let the word get out).
If you're implying that what Bush said implies that the government was responsible, you'd be very much mistaken. Anyone would have said that.

On a different note, I like the building they're putting up in place of them. I don't know why they chose a Dubai-style, really tall building, but it looks nice. It's also 1,776 feet tall, which is kind of silly, but kind of cool. 1776 being the year the Declaration of Independence was put into effect.

This is definitely a situation where Occam's Razor applies. The government would have absolutely no reason to hide 9/11.

You've got a point. Either way, the majority will assume it was a terrorist attack.