Sounds like Fisk had a stroke and started buying into Troofer nonsense this week. I’ll get right to the relevant passage and in honor of Mr. Fisk I think we’ll Fisk it.
But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon?
It’s so embarrassing when journalists just don’t look before they leap. No airplane parts at the pentagon? Really? This is still a question for him? The no plane nonsense is so silly that even the conspiracy cranks denounce it as a trojan horse attempt to discredit their movement.
Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled?
Muzzled officials, blah blah blah. Snore. Substantiate or go away.
Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?
Airplane parts miles away? That old mistake? Miles away by Mapquest – a hysterical and oft repeated error from the conspiracy nuts – but much closer as the crow flies. And it didn’t land in one piece. 93 was approaching the speed of sound as it slammed into the ground. It wasn’t like a take-off or landing crash. It was a full-speed collision with a solid object. So I don’t know where he gets this “single piece” nonsense.
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?
This is just embarrassing. Again and again the engineers and fire experts have explained that not only was kerosene not the only fuel in that fire, but that steel doesn’t need to melt to deform and weaken. And the critical failure lead to rapid downward pulverization of the floors beneath. Now how in the world can a journalist repeat such a weak point so credulously?
(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?
Again boring, we have the freefall myth. And WTC7? Hmm, maybe it fell to the ground because it had been compromised by the debris from the falling towers? A huge chunk of the structure was damaged, fires were raging, diesel fuel tanks were blowing up, and the girder structure of the building could not sustain the load in the presence of all that heat.
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.
NIST will release their report at the end of the year, and there is already plenty of material from NIST and others on why the conspiracy of wtc7 is nonsense. And no one can come up with a plausible explanation for why wtc7 would have to be destroyed with demolition as part of some false-flag nonsense. The cranks love it, but I think it’s the weakest link they have.
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”.
I’ll believe that when I see it.
How embarrassing that Fisk has exposed himself as a poor journalist, and yet another hit against the Independent for being a major source of crank nonsense.