Ten Years After 9/11 Questions Still Remain Unanswered
Posted: Saturday, August 27, 2011
by Kenny St.pierre
We all recall where we were on September 11th, 2001 when we learned of the World Trade Center Towers being attacked by American planes by supposed foreigners, and I also remember the sorrow we collectively experienced on that day and for months thereafter. But this article is not about the sadness nor our whereabouts on that day. Instead I wish to raise questions that many have expressed since that day, yet no government official has answered satisfactorily.
HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT? How could he see the first plane hit when there wasn't any immediate video available on the morning of 9/11? Only those on the ground and in the building could have witnessed it first hand. President Bush was in Florida being read to by 5th graders.
Question Two: If America was under attack, why didn't the President seek shelter for the students and get them to safety? Wouldn't the President be among the targets of such terrorist attacks, especially since it was reported in the papers that Bush would be attending the school days in advance. What a great opportunity for any terrorist to hijack a plane in Miami or some other nearby city and crash it into the school. Instead the President just sat there and listened to the kids read. Did he know in advance he wasn't under attack? Did he have prior knowledge?
Question Three: After the second plane hit we remember seeing footage of him, in the classroom, being informed by an agent that “America was under attack.” But Bush sits and peers blankly like a bad actor. When asked why he didn't act immediately, he stated, “I knew my role as a leader is to stay calm in such a crises. It would not have been good to panic and send the nation a message of fear.”
Mr. President, the nation was NOT watching you. You weren't on national television. We knew nothing about your reaction till the footage came out days later. Why didn't you jump into action and move the military to execute and shoot down any additional planes that may be off course and a danger to the nation? The only humans who would have witnessed your “panic” would have been the children and teacher. They hardly represent the entire nation.
Question Four: Thirty-three minutes after the second plane hit the WTC, news reports abounded that Osama Bin Laden was the “mastermind” behind the plot. How, under such short notice, did the mass media come to this conclusion? Without any prior evidence of a Bin Laden connection to 9/11, how was it possible to reason instantly that Bin Laden was the culprit? Mass media propaganda maybe? A reason to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Bin Laden himself said he had nothing to do with the attacks. Why would he, the “mastermind behind the attacks” claim he had nothing to do with the best executed terrorist act in history and deny such precision? It's simple - he had nothing to do with the attacks, but our government falsely and knowingly accused him as a reason for war in the Middle East. War is lucrative business. Osama-Bin-Laden was a concocted Boogey man. Think about it: Osama-Bin-Laden, Lee-Harvey-Oswald, James-Earl-Ray, Sirhan-Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth. These are the types of names the government emphasizes as conspirators because psychologically they “stick” in the minds of the masses and are believable.
Question Five: “ WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition. It fell suddenly, straight down, at near free-fall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings. These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7's collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions. Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they "pull" WTC 7. "Pull" is an industry term that means "demolish," but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions. Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report.”
Why and how did this building, which only had a few small fires in it, collapse when no plane hit it? It's my understanding that Larry Silverstein had it “pulled” because he could triple his money on the investment of the building. It takes weeks to plan and “pull” a building of that size which means building 7 was packed with explosives prior to 9/11, suggesting Silverstein knew about the attacks in advance, and pulled it on that day so it would appear as an act of terror, thus collecting the enormous amount of insurance money for it's demolition.
Question Six: “ Fire has never — prior to or after 9/11 — caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near free-fall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition.”
How then could these steel-framed buildings come down due to fire alone? Many police and fire-fighters, who were on the ground that day, had witnessed many explosions taking place on the lower levels of the buildings suggesting a premeditated attack. An inside job! The WTC steel, which if fully examined, could have revealed the effects of explosives, but instead was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.
Question Seven : “One day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero and reported by the media, even though its next to impossible such a flimsy item escaped the towering inferno unblemished.”
How could it be that such a fragile piece of plastic escaped the inferno that blazed for weeks, yet none of the black boxes, which are made of titanium and nearly indestructible, were never recovered at ground zero? Weeks later it was announced that Al Suqami was alive and well, and not among the hijackers as reported earlier. Planted passport maybe?
Question Eight: Fire, caused by airline fuel CAN NOT get hot enough to melt steel. “People (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.”
How then, given the 9/11 Commission's version of the collapse, could have steel melted, when jet fuel alone is incapable of such temperatures that are required to melt steel? Engineers say that thermite or thermate are chemicals used to to burn through steel like a hot knife does butter. Was thermite and bombs planted in the WTC buildings before 9/11?
Question Nine: Many say, including Donald Rumsfeld, that flight 93 was shot down by a missile. There were no bodies or luggage discovered in Shanksville Pennsylvania, suggesting that a crash never took place. Any normal plane crash site has the makings of fire, luggage, bodies, blood, plane parts, large wing portions, etc., but instead all we saw on that day was a smoking crater with no distinguishable signs of a plane crash. Many volunteer workers gave up less than an hour after arriving at the scene in search of luggage and bodies admitting to not seeing any. Was flight 93 shot down by our own? Why did the 9/11 Commission state in it's report that 93 was hijacked and crashed? Why would the hijackers crash a plane in the middle of a remote area if they had a specific target? AND if the passengers had taken back the plane from the hijackers wouldn't the pilots had resumed control and landed safely somewhere? It makes no sense. Passengers win = Safe landing. Hijackers win = Target destination. But the plane “crashed” in Shanksville. WHY?
Question Ten: The Pentagon claimed that flight 77, a commercial liner, had hit it, yet again the hole in the side of the building was more like a missile hit than a plane crash. The most protected building in the world was reportedly hit by a commercial aircraft flown by pilot Hani Hanjour, whom was incapable of flying even a small single engine plane. His instructor in flight school said of Hanjour that, “He was a terrible pilot.” Also, a 757 does not have the maneuverability to pull off the moves necessary for such an attack. Only a missile or military plane has the capacity to avoid the anti-aircraft missiles planted at the Pentagon and be identified as friend rather than foe. How could a commercial airliner attack and avoid being shot down in the most militarily protected area of America more than a half hour after we were officially declared to be under attack? Why is the FBI withholding 84 tapes of the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?
YouTube: 9/11 Inside Job - The Most Damning Evidence Yet!
YouTube: 9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon
YouTube: Secret Recordings of Donald Rumsfeld speaking about 9-11
YouTube: Black Boxes - Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
You Tube: 9/11 CONSPIRACY: ALEX JONES PREDICTS 9/11 IN JULY 2001
http://www2.ae911truth.org/11rfa911.php
http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
YouTube: Proof that 9/11 flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville
You Tube: Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 5
This Article has been viewed 470 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.