JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A SURVIVOR SAYS EVEN THE SIMPLEST QUESTIONS AROUND 9/11 HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED BY GOVERNMENT – YES, AND SOME DISTURBING TRUTHS AROUND THOSE EVENTS – THE SAUDI ARABIAN NONSENSE

John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY

 

‘It’s been 15 years. Not even the simplest questions answered’

DeSantis is right in his main statements.

This collapse has never been explained.

In the case of 9/11, one thing is indisputably true, and that is that the official explanation is incomplete, and that is true no matter who was responsible.

Those towers were so strongly built with their central core each of 47 massive steel caissons – 4-inch thick steel assembled into immensely-strong rectangular upright beams – that the crash of a plane could not possibly damage them. The underlying structure was deliberately designed to be impervious to the crash of a large airliner. The holes we saw on the airplanes’ striking the twin towers involved only the outer curtain-walls, which, along with everything else, were suspended from the caissons.

Also, aviation jet fuel – a form of diesel – burns at about 1500 degrees. The steel of those caissons required a temperature in excess of 3000 degrees to melt.

You can see in the videos that, after the plane strike, there are huge billows of fuel which burn off fairly quickly. Their smoke is even a different color than what follows afterwards. If nothing else had happened, this would have been an event confined only to several upper floors of each of the twin towers. There is even a video shot at one point of a woman survivor looking out from a corner of the huge hole in the wall. She clearly is not experiencing the steel-melting heat which was to follow.

The images of collapse do make it clear that the central core began collapsing before the façade in each building, and you can see it most clearly in a video of the top mast of one of the twin towers which shows the mast hesitating and then beginning to sink down and through the roof. Something unknown has made the central core support caissons below the mast fail.

After that, the whole cascade downward, facades and core, begins. And we see a different color smoke – likely from oxygen-deprived burning in the central core, which was constructed in sealed-off intervals to prevent fire storms from moving through the buildings. And we see at intervals rivulets of melted metal pouring out of places on the façade, something not possible from the heat of burning jet fuel, almost certainly steel melted by a special explosive such as thermite.

I do not believe the entire series of events was possible without demolition charges having been planted along the length of the central caissons, shaped or thermite charges attached at intervals, wired together, and fired electrically. The third large building to collapse, Building 7, only suddenly collapsed many hours later, and it was not hit by an airplane. It went down in precisely the same fashion, literally moving downwards, suddenly, at just the speed dictated by gravity, a fact which has been carefully measured.

Steel-frame buildings simply do not behave this way. There have been hundreds of fires in different parts of the world in such buildings, and this behavior has never before been seen. The only exception is when they are subject to controlled demolition. Then we see exactly the same pattern.

Those caissons were in fact all reachable from the central elevator shafts, and security at those towers was quite lax with a number of contractors and service people doing work over an extended period before the disaster.

Who was responsible? I don’t know, but it is clear that the official explanation of “pancaking” floors holds no scientific validity.

If the charges were set by the same people who arranged the plane hijacking, that fact alone would cause US officials to want to hide facts, needing to explain how weeks of work went ahead undetected inside the buildings.

The lack of security – especially in light of the earlier effort to bring a tower down with a truck bomb in the basement by another group – is embarrassing and very difficult to explain.

As far as the role of the Saudis, that is a red herring. Saudi officials paid Osama to stay away from Saudi Arabia, not to attack anyone. That really is what was being hidden with that 28-page report not being published. It was felt people wouldn’t understand and would misinterpret, which is just what they are doing now that it has been published.

The Saudis had no motive, none at all, enjoying good relations with the American government. If for any reason they had done this, the United States would have only been too happy to invade their country and seize its oil production, a far greater prize than the wastelands of Afghanistan.

No, the answer about who did this lies elsewhere, but don’t expect the United States to explain any time soon.

We still don’t know who killed Kennedy. We still don’t know the truth about TWA Flight 800, which was almost certainly shot down by an American Navy missile in error. And, of course, we still don’t know the truth about Malaysian Flight MH-17 in Ukraine, an event whose investigation the US government controls and deliberately delays so as not to embarrass its pet government in Kiev.