Skeptical 911 Researchers Still Ask Questions

The official prevailing version of what happened on September 11, 2001 is that the World Trade Towers in New York City were hit by passenger jetliners that had been taken over by young Arabian hijackers. In addition, the prevailing version of events alleges that another jet aircraft hit the Pentagon and still another one crashed into the ground in or near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Moreover, the official account of September 11, 2001 continues with the claim that the twin towers were completely destroyed and fell to the ground to become just a pile of debris because of both the crash of the aircraft into the towers and the subsequent fires that were caused by the spilled jet fuel.

According to skeptical researchers who have closely studied the events of that fateful day in 2001, there are problematic evidential issues associated with this dominant version of the events of 911. Forthwith in this presentation, I will refer to these events as simply 911. Skeptical researchers say that there is still needed a comprehensive investigation and analysis of what happened on that fateful day in 2001. They also see a need for more careful analysis of data relevant to supporting the official and prevailing account, if only for the sake of historical accuracy. I will next present what I believe are some of the main concerns that these skeptical researchers write about in relation to 911.

I will present in no special order some of the questions that the skeptics believe merit further investigation so that more clarity about what did happen on 911 can be found. I am going to present only general statements about these questions and related issues and thereby will avoid getting into precise details that might obscure the overall picture of the central concerns of the skeptical 911 researchers who continue to have questions about the official version of 911. So that we don’t lose sight of the forest by attending too closely to the trees, the following information is presented, therefore, in general terms while omitting many precise details. Hopefully, we will more clearly see just the forest of remaining skepticism among 911 researchers and thereby not get lost in so many details about the trees.

There is the question of the twin towers in NYC having fallen at what was essentially free-fall speed–falling at approximately the speed of gravity. That would not be possible without the buildings having been demolished by explosives. But if explosives were used to take down the twin towers, when were they installed? It takes a long time to install explosives. This is perhaps the major concern of all skeptics of the official story of 911.

There is also the question having to do with the names of the alleged Arabian hijackers. There seems to be evidence that some of the accused hijackers are alive. But if some are alive, how could they have really been among the hijackers of 911? Presumably everyone aboard the jetliners destroyed on 911 are deceased.

There is the question having to do with aircraft flying at low altitude before crashing into the towers in NYC. Aircraft cannot travel as fast as the planes on 911 were traveling at such a low altitude without the planes shaking and essentially falling apart. So what were we really seeing on TV when we supposedly saw intact planes fly into buildings? And how could a jet aircraft fly into a concrete and steel building with the ease of a butter-knife cutting throught soft butter? This is perhaps the most hotly debated and most controversial issue that skeptical 911 researchers hold quite different opinions about. This is the question of whether aircraft indeed did crash into the twin towers in NYC or whether some kind of special effects video production had been involved.

There is the question of how fires from the fuel of jet aircraft could have generated enough heat to cause steel frame buildings, such as the twin towers, to collapse. Aircraft fuel could not burn that hot and the fires did not last long.

Another question to be answered, say the skeptics, has to do with the fall of another World Trader Center building, Building 7, which also was apparently demolished on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Even the owner of the building acknowledged it was demolished. His words were that they decided to “pull” the building. “Pull” presumably means demolish in the jargon of the building-demoltion professionals. But, ask the skeptics, doesn’t it take a lot of preparation to install explosive materials used in a buidling demolition? How could the explosives have been installed on the same day of the building’s demolition? And, they ask, is there a convincing explanation of why Building 7 was demolished on 911?

Strangely, a reporter was standing in front of Building 7 giving a report of its collapse without realizing the building had not yet been demolished when the news report was begun. Skeptical researchers ask, how was this possible?

Questions remain about a plane over Pennsylvania and a plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon.

The aircraft that was supposedly taken down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania was reported to have passangers aboard who were communicating with family or with others by means of cell phones. The question skeptical researchers ask about this is as follows: how were those calls made inasmuch as at that time there was presumably no technology to allow cell phone calls to be sustained when an aircraft was flying at the speed and altitude of the aircraft that flew over Pennsylvania on that fateful day in 2001.

Also to be answered, say the skeptics, is the question of why no search team undertook a project of trying to find bodies–or possible survivors!–from the supposed crash of the plane in Shanksville. The plane is said to have been essentially “sucked into” soft earth. Moreover, the area where the plane reportedly went into the ground is relatively small compared to the size of the jet aircraft said to have crashed into it. And the debris nearby was remarkably sparce. Since there were supposedly passangers aboard that plane, what accounts for nobody trying to find bodies or survivors underground where the plane was supposedly “sucked into”?

There are several important issues to question, say the 911 skeptical researchers, about the reported plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. One of the most oft-cited questions has to do with the condition of the lawn and grass in front of the Pentagon where the plane was supposedly flying overhead at very low altitude. The lawn and its grass were remarkably undisturbed after a jet aircraft had just flown so fast and so low to the ground just above the lawn. What allowed the lawn to be left almost pristine given that a jet plan had just flown fast and close to the ground above a relatively pristine lawn that was later seen?

Another issue researchers refer to has to do with the government investigation into the events of 911. Even among the persons in charge of the official investigation, at least one later commented that the investigation was not wholly satisfactory. The concern is that the investigators might not have had good information from all needed sources. So the only official investigation of 911 remains less than satisfactory.

So skeptical researchers continue to believe a more complete and careful investigation into what actually happened on 911 is needed for clarity about what did happen on 911 and for the sake of historical accuracy. Another more complete and careful investigation might better answer the questions referred to above as well as other questions that serious independent researchers into 911 have been exploring since the tragic day of September 11, 2001.

J D Holliday PhD