911 Questions Concerning the World Trade Center

By Nick Poma, published Sep 21, 2007
Published Content: 280  Total Views: 92,497  Favorited By: 43 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 4.8 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
 
Grab this
There are many questions surrounding the events of 911. Many of which were brought forth after that horrendous day. Many are being presented on a daily basis and they just seem to keep adding up. This article is my attempt to voice these questions and have the readers respond to them either through comments, or through rebuttal articles. It will be my intention to only comment on those things which can be validated by print media, audio recording, or video. I will not engage in hearsay, nor will I attempt to establish motive. I will simply put forth the facts.

The World Trade Center

To this writer there is no contestation as to whether planes hit the towers, or not, it is clear that they did. The contention around the World Trade Center was whether, or not the planes are what brought down the Towers. The first tower struck was the North Tower by American Airlines flight 11 at 8:46 AM. The South Tower was struck at 9:03 AM.

Fire and the Towers

There are those that believe that it is possible for the jet fuel to have burned and reached temperatures high enough to weaken the structural steel in the towers. This has been put forth by Popular Mechanics, and the 911 Commission Report is in agreement with this assessment. However, National Institute of Standards and Technology states that the jet fuel would have been likely burned up in the first initial moments after the impact. This would have only left those items inside the building to burn, which would only amount to a typical hydrocarbon fire.

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Nick Poma
View all »
You may also like...
Other topics: 
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
 
The whole event is mysterious. Many things happened that are unexplained, hidden, or forgotten. Maybe it was the Anti-Christ

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/14/2008 at 11:05:41 PM

 
Knowing a bit about Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Dubai, Halliburton, Kellogg, Root & Brown, Viet Nam war profits, it does tend to leave my questions unanswered. Hillary Clinton is now admitting "we had false intelligence" and I do hope we, the people can elect more honest politicans in the future.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
People who claim to have been in one of the towers, share their claims online. One man says his interview with the 9/11 Commission where he told of the explosions and a "fireball" in the basement, was not mentioned in the "9/11" report. The government would not release the names of those who benefited by 'put options' two weeks prior to the tragedy. A "slightly charred passport" found amid the rubble as proof of guilt is suspect. I am expected to believe that a fire that burns so hot it can melt steel, would not burn up a passport of someone who was suppossed to be on the plane. Now that is insanity.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
The only people who kept their heads were those who believe the books of Revelation. Thy Kingdom Come and hallelujah, it is about time. We are sick and tired of man's brutailities against humanity. Having pondered how Hitler could get people to march other human beings into gas chambers, it was rather horrfying to see USA citizens turn into vicous sheep willing to give up Constitutional freedoms for "security" and protection from terrorists.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
When I turned on the radio that morning what I heard was "bombs and explosions" from news reporters. Timothy McVeigh's execution was fresh in mind, as were bomb threats at Long Beach's WTC. Rumsfield's headline in local newspapers, the day before about the Pentagon "misplacing" billions of dollars was completely forgotten in the wake of this tragedy. The terrorists shock and awe value of the event definitely put people collectively in a state of shock in my town.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
I agree with that statement Chad, however, it just seems that the answers that are given are not good enough, and to tell the truth I do not think they will ever be good enough. It comes down to a fundamental difference between people. Some trust the government to do good, others believe that the government is not to be trusted at all.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
The problem with the idea of someone saying "There have been questions piling up" is that those who ask those questions conveniently ignore that they are being consistently answered by professionals. I wonder when the "question askers" will acknowledge that it's not that their questions aren't being answered - it's that they aren't being turned into a political voice.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2007 at 12:09:00 AM

 
As far as the kinetic energy is concerned, much of it would have been absorbed by the sway of the buildings during the initial collision. The buildings were designed to withstand Hurricane force winds and according to all reports that I have read, the force of the impact caused the buildings to sway only slightly. The buildings swayed as intended which in turn is where the kinetic energy was dissipated.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/22/2007 at 9:09:00 PM

 
You are right about the plane Jim, it actually was a B25 I had a typo and apparently a brain cramp as well when I said it was commiserate with a plane in use today. While it is it is not even close to a 767, but I was only using it in examples where building had sustained large fires for longer periods of time and did not collapse, which is the underlying idea of that particular secion.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/22/2007 at 9:09:00 PM

 
Furthermore, with regard to the WTC, there seems to be no accounting for the damage from the kinetic energy of the 757's. I'm no physicist but clearly the how ever many foot tons of energy the aircraft generated would have to go somewhere, like say the frame of the building, as the skin was glass and would have dissipated almost none of the energy. Is it not likely the aircraft caused catastrophic structural damage as it transferred it's kinetic energy to the point of compromising the steel and concrete frame at the floors of the impact? Major structural damage to the frame AND 1600F temps could have done it, I bet.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/22/2007 at 7:09:00 PM

 
Nick, you have made a confusing error in the last paragraph of pg.2. "In 1945 a B-25 bomber was lost in the fog when it slammed into the Empire State Building. A B-52 bomber is commiserate with a modern day airliner, in regards to weight, payload, and the amount of fuel it carries." YES, a B25 hit the Empire State Building, not a B52. And while a B52 is the size of a modern airliner, in no way is a B25 it's equal, so this is completely false, even if you had not incorrectly juxtaposed the letters and numbers.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/22/2007 at 7:09:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
Most Commented On