You can do your own research, champ.
I'm sick of busting ass to re-find the thousands of thousands of especially damning and convincing and SENSIBLE pages I've read on the topic over the past FIVE and a half freaking YEARS.
I think the core of my point is beautifully illustrated by the fact that,
I have 2 favorite magazines.
One is called "The Skeptic".
It deals with debunking wild claims and myths...humiliating shysters...educating people about common misconceptions.
The other fave magazine is "Paranoid".
They deal in any and every kind of Conspiracy theory...be it indisputable ones (such as Watergate and Iran/Contra), or the ridiculous crackpot stuff about Lizard people, etc.
I enjoyed the fact that, I bought an issue of Paranoid and they had a lengthy section on 9/11 presenting evidence that would have to leave any thinking person convinced at least that the official story is horse-s*** and that the U.S. gov't., at the very least, allowed it to happen.
And the next issue of The Skeptic came out, and as luck would have it, they too sort of dedicated the issue to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theory and supporting the official story.
...and after reading it, I'd think any thinking person would have to agree that there was nothing untoward going on and the official story is accurate.
The point here is, it's dangerous and just plain foolish to arrogantly assume one "KNOWS" what "really" happened when one wasn't there.
Whether you think a giant invisible Mummy knocked the towers over, or that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are 100% honest, straight-shooting good old vigilant Americans who only have everyone's best interests at heart and sadly make a few little mistakes from time to time...(
).....
Since you weren't involved, you ARE taking someone's word for what happened....and very intelligent, knowledgeable people feel one way about it, and very intelligent people feel exactly the opposite about it.