Gas Week

EWN Publishing

Troubling questions surround 9/11 events: lengthy list of inconsistencies, non-sequiturs, technicalities and legal challenges remain unanswered

Posted by gasweek on 2 October, 2007

Robert Fisk is reported in The Australian (27/8/2007, p. 17) as writing in The Independent in Britain: “Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience whom I call the ‘raver’. His – or her – question goes like this. ‘Why, if you believe you’re a free journalist, don’t you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don’t you tell the truth that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don’t you reveal the secrets behind 9/11?'”

Worrying questions: Fisk continued: “I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: Where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attacks on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the Twin Towners – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it?”

Many odd things about 9/11: “The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings,” Fisk wrote. “They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be ‘fraudulent or deceptive’. Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard ‘explosions’ in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound.”

Troubling inconsistencies in letter: “OK, so let’s claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA’s list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error. But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose ‘Islamic’ advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the Fajr prayer to be included in Atta’s letter.”

The Australian, 27/8/2007, p. 17


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: