I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C -– 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? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering -– very definitely not in the "raver" bracket -– are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Robert Fisk of the Independent UK lists some questions about the official version of what happened on 9-11. Here's a quote:
Posted by Bruce Prescott at 8:11 AM