The Controversy of September 11th
On September 11th 2001 the United States faced one of the most tragic terrorist attacks in history. After the events of that day many questions were left unanswered and an astounding lack of evidence was left behind. I believe that there is much more to what really happened that day then the official story states. In my opinion the United States played a part in those events or just allowed them to happen all in an attempt to gain support for invading the Middle East.
Possibly the most controversial part of the events of 9/11 was all the conflicting stories and disturbing lack of evidence left at the Pentagon after the supposed crash into one of its walls. One of the most intriguing aspects of the Pentagon attack is the size of the crash site. The hole said to be left by the plane in the pentagon was approximately 65 feet across, when a Boeing 757 (the plane used in the attacks) has a wingspan of 124 feet. How could something that large, traveling at up to 440 mph, leave a whole that differs that much in size? (Vinayakaya, The Pentagon Was Not).
To go along with that, according to Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11 The Big Lie, the supposed plane crash didn’t damage lawn of the Pentagon or the helicopter pad in front of the crash site. There were also no identifiable plane parts found just generic metal fragments, the lack of debris is hard to believe because wreckage was found in both of the World Trade Center Towers despite the intense heat of the fires inside (19-24).
This information leads many people to believe that the United States fired a missile on the Pentagon to give the appearance of a plane crash. This is supported by the fact that the only thing that would be able to get past the Pentagon’s defense systems without getting shot down would have had to access to the codes that define an object as a non-threat. Missiles made by the US government would be programmed using these codes making all of this possible. Meyssan also states in his book that the damage found at the Pentagon fits the typical result of a modern day missile strike (27).
The most intriguing and confusing part of the attacks on the US is the collapse of World Trade Center building seven. WTC building seven collapsed without being attacked or having any structural damage to it. The mainstream news didn’t cover the collapse of building seven due to the magnitude of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon but it was documented in the official report and quickly became a source of controversy and conspiracy. There is even video evidence of the building owner of the World Trade Center’s, Larry Silverstein, telling someone to “pull it”. Pull it is the common term for ordering demolition in the demolition business.
The main focuses of September 11th were the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings; even this part of the official story is shrouded in controversy. The leading argument is that the two buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash in the event of a tragic accident. So how could one plane bring down a building built to withstand such an event? In an article from www.truthplease.hubpages.com, it is stated that the buildings tested at temperatures up to 2000 C, and jet fuel only burns as hot as 980 C, yet the official story says that the burning jet fuel melted the internal structure of the building.
The Twin Towers collapsed down onto themselves in a fashion that is customary for demolition. In an article on attackonamerica.net, Jerry Russell Ph.D. says that a modern skyscraper would not collapse like that unless it was demolished; they say it’s highly unlikely for a building to do that in the case of an accident, even less likely for two in a row to fall like that. He also writes that “Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.”
Along with all of the expert opinions on how...