By Jamie Stone

September 11 2001: The reports have United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 hi-jacked and flown into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre complex in New York. A 3rd plane American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon and a 4th, United Airlines Flight 93 over run by the passengers which crashed in bush land outside of Pennsylvania. 2,973 people died that day in the United States worst ever terrorist disaster.

I have been researching this topic now for nearly 4 years in an attempt to solve a few unanswered and unexplainable questions. Many remain unanswered by the "9/11 Commission" and the grieving families of the 2,973 people who died that day deserve the right for these questions to be answered!

I am only going to go into a few of the main questions that stood out during my research.

Firstly, after studying news footage and photos from respected news stations and newspapers that covered the events unfolding that day, my focus first turned to the Pentagon.

Out of all the photos and footage i obtained of the Pentagon, not one of them shows any debris of plane wreckage. In fact the only debris I found does not match any part of an American Airliner. Although the colours and letters on the piece are similar, it does not fit into any section of an American Airliner. The engines shown in some photo's, do not match those of a commercial airliner either.

In news footage from CNN, I noticed that just after the crash that the roof line of the building had not yet collapsed. News reporters were saying they could hear what sounds like small explosions from inside the Pentagon. One reporter from CNN said "there seems to be no trace at all that an Airliner had even hit the building".

All that can be seen from the news footage or photo's is a hole in the outer wall, no tail wing (which is usually one of the most survivable parts of a plane), no jet engines, and fuselage or wing sections. I found it very strange that an American Airliner could leave barely any wreckage and not cause the roof to collapse on immediate impact. Other photos showing the pentagon after the roof collapsed revealed that office equipment like a chair and computer monitor can be seen clearly at the edge of the collapse unscathed and not even burnt from jet fuel. Even the upper walls of the building don't seem badly damaged or burnt by jet fuel.

It seems plausible that a commercial airliner would create much more damage to a building than what is shown in the pictures, considering that the reports have the Twin Towers collapsing due to fires caused by the jet fuel, weakening the steel causing a pancake collapse. This turned my attention towards the Twin Towers collapse which I found rather disturbing, not for the facts of what actually happened, but what I uncovered during my research.

The towers collapsed due to uncontrollable fires, or so we were told. Again I analyzed video footage of that day, live from news stations like CNN, Fox, BBC, etc. Again there were reports of explosions coming from firefighters, news reporters and residents on the ground. Much of the fire or jet fuel seemed to burn in the initial impact of the building and both building were left smoldering with very few fires visible.

Watching the collapse, I couldn't believe that steel structures that tall could be bought down that quickly due to fire's weakening the steel (considering both planes hit between the 80th and 100th floor). The damage turned both buildings to rubble and ground zero as it was called was left smoldering for months. Workers and firefighters claimed that they could not go near the rubble in areas due to the soles of their shoes melting. Why was it so hot for so long? The pentagon was not left smoldering for long and no heat was reported by the firefighters or recovery crew?

I started to find this a little unbelievable after the U.S claimed it found the passport of one of the hi-jackers. Question: How could a passport be found belonging to one of the hi-jackers be in good enough conditition that they can pin point it to one of the terrorist that was on the plane? Yet the fire in the buildings was so great it caused the buildings to collapse? How lucky they were that a passport of one of the hi-jackers survived (out of all the people that were on that plane) or they may never have known who flew them planes.

The following day September 12 CNN news reported that tower number 7 was about to collapse due to uncontrollable fires and damage sustained the previous day. I found it strange that they seemed to know it was about to collapse?

When that building collapsed it fell directly into it's own basement. It was not hit by any plane and is a substantial distance from the twin towers when they collapsed. How did this building catch fire? Did the sprinkler system fail in the building for the fire to get that great it caused that building to collapse? What really happened?

Out of all the news footage I have viewed and photo's I have studied, I cannot see any uncontrollable fires in that building, only small pockets of fire which the sprinkler system should have extinguished if it was working. Yet it collapsed, perfectly, just as you see in controlled demolitions.

One interview with Larry Silverstein (owner of the world trade centre complex) has him saying that he gave them the word to "pull" building 7. That is a word commonly used in demolition. How building 7 could be "pulled" the next day is impossible as it take months of planning and preparing to demolish a building!

I decided to do some research on fires in buildings and building collapses due to earthquakes etc. My research found that those 3 World Trade Centre buildings are the only steel buildings in history to have collapsed due to fire.

There have been many towering infernos through-out the world which burned uncontrollably for much longer, some for over 24 hours yet none of those buildings ever collapsed.

I did some research on building collapses due to earthquake, some of these structures collapsed in a pancake style collapse; you can still see the floors intact sitting one on top of another. Other buildings just toppled over staying relatively intact. This cannot be seen with the Twin Tower or Building 7. It was a smoldering, hot and toxic mess at Ground Zero for months. The pancake effect cannot be true because both towers collapsed in around 10 seconds, which is nearly free fall speed from the height of the towers and the floors cannot be seen anywhere.

Why was it so hot for so long and why did it fall so fast? I turned my attention to building demolitions, especially after the report from Larry Silverstein. Months of planning and preparation is needed for a controlled demolition of buildings that size. Explosives are placed at all joints and load bearing sections of the building. A series of explosions take place at the basement to weaken the foundations. Then the building is brought down in a controlled manner and the structure basically collapses into it's own footprints with huge clouds of dust.

After comparing a building collapse to a building demolition, I have no doubt in my mind that the twin towers and especially building 7 were brought down by explosives. The similarities are astounding. What were the explosions heard by some news reporters and firemen before the collapse? How did news reporters know that Building 7 was about to come down. Were they warned beforehand? Why did Larry Silverstein say "I gave them the word to pull" referring to Building 7 when it takes months of preparation and planning? Why were so many news cameras waiting for the collapse of Building 7? No fires can be seen to cause a collapse! This building had to have been taken down by controlled demolition as Silverstein said as it fall directly into its footprints and is left smoldering just like the twin towers.

Could the Twin Towers have been collapsed by control demolition as well?

I looked into the construction and design of the twin towers. The towers consisted of a steel inner core which housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. Each building was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 and the constant wind of a hurricane. Office workers could feel the buildings sway on windy days. The buildings held up to the initial impact of the Boeing 767 which is what they were designed to do. The central core rules out the pancake collapse theory because this would still be left standing. For the core to be completely gone and the heat experienced by firemen and workers at Ground Zero, means detonation charges must have been used on the central core and throughout the building to cause it to collapse at the speed which it did.

It is not plausible to even consider a pancake collapse theory as the floors would still be left relatively intact and the core would be left standing. The collapse would have taken much longer than 10 seconds and heat would not have been experienced for months after. If building 7 was "pulled", it is a very good chance the Twin Towers we're also "pulled"

The true nature of the core structures is of great importance in the Twin Towers, given that the most widely read document about the World Trade Center attack is the 9/11 Commission Report. It denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shafts" when construction photos show otherwise.

Some facts: Head of security was Marvin Bush. The Twin Towers were a financial loss. Larry Silverstein took out insurance policy months before the attacks, insuring the complex against terrorist attacks. The Pentagon was hit on the only side that was being renovated. Surrounding surveillance tapes from local service stations and hotels were confiscated by CIA not long after the Pentagon was hit. Only 2 security videotapes have ever been released from the Pentagon, neither video shows the airliner.

There is much more to this story than we have been told. So many more questions are left unanswered that the grieving widows and young children, who lost their fathers and mothers, should have already had answered. The pictures and news stories speak for themselves. Do your own study, draw your own conclusions. What really went on that day? Nearly 3000 innocent people were killed that day for no apparent reason.

Who really did this?

Make up your own mind.

About the Author

Australian Freelance Writer and Researcher jamiestone4870@hotmail.com copyright 2006