One of the many interesting aspects of 9/11 is the fact that the towers collapsed at all.
There have been numerous high-rise buildings that have caught fire in the past. Some of them had several floors burning for more than 24 hours and didn’t fall down.
And then 9/11 occurs – first time in history that a steel-framed building collapses due to fire – it might be reasonable to think that forensic engineers would be allowed to study the steel members that failed so buildings could be built better in the future.
But what happened at ‘ground-zero’?
The site was sanitized as quickly as possible.
The steel was sold to recyclers who promised to melt it quickly.
GPS units were placed on the trucks used to haul the steel to ensure that the steel went directly to the recyclers and nowhere else. One driver was fired because he took a two hour lunch break while he had a load of steel on his truck.
Does any of this prove that 9/11 was an inside job? Nope – but it sure makes me wonder.
I have a degree in aerospace engineering. The history of aerospace is replete with accidents – mankind didn’t learn to fly without breaking a few eggs. When an accident occurred, the remains of the vehicle were studied so the vehicle could be built better next time. Metals were closely analyzed to determine exactly how the failure occurred – did the metal fatigue and gradually give way? – was the metal brittle and snapped? – was the metal not strong enough and tore?
When I contrast the degree of study given to aerospace accidents to what happened at ground zero, the cleanup of ground zero looks like a cover-up. It appears that the metal remains of the towers were intentionally destroyed before forensic engineers could examine them.
Does this prove anything? Nope – just more questions that aren’t answered by the government’s version of what happened on 9/11.
