A View on 09/11/01
R-N prof and dean, Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk brings up evidence surrounding 9/11, questioning the official account
Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk
Issue date: 9/11/07 Section: Observations
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Six years later, the impact is still felt. The implications are still more troubling. My vivid recollections are the sudden silent disappearance from my vantage point from Smith Hall on Warren Street of the towers, replaced by a giant plume of white smoke, and my thought of the futility of the UMDNJ's calling and mobilizing all health care personnel; no person in the buildings could survive the collapse.
Some months later over breakfast with a colleague, I reacted in disbelief when he said, "You know, there was no debris from a jetliner crash evident in photos of the Pentagon that day." His claim started me to read extensively about the events of the day.
Based upon my reading, published evidence leads me to a terribly disturbing conclusion as to the veracity of the official government accounts. Here are some of my questions. Can you answer them?
#1: In fact, no commercial jetliner debris - no engines, tail section, luggage, bodies, are visible in photos of the Pentagon just after whatever collided with it. Why has no film of any collision with the Pentagon ever been shown to the public despite the existence of all the Pentagon's surveillance cameras? Contrast that absence with the unendingly repeated films shown of the planes hitting the twin towers.
#2: The Pentagon is protected by surface-to-air missiles. Why were they not deployed to shoot down whatever it was that hit the building?
#3: The twin towers fell at almost free-fall velocity, which means that they had no resistance as they fell. If they "pancaked" down, as the official reports claim, the resistance of the lower floors would have drastically slowed the fall. The near-free-fall speed, the concrete dust that was so finely pulverized, and the molten structural steel, are evidence that explosions, not planes, brought down the towers - a demolition process that must have been put into effect well prior to 9/11.
#4: Building 7 of the World Trade Center was reported to have been "pulled," as in a planned demolition, collapsing at free-fall velocity later the same day, never having been hit by the planes that hit the twin towers. It takes days to set explosives in a building to prepare it for demolition. Those explosives must have been placed also in that building prior to 9/11.
Some months later over breakfast with a colleague, I reacted in disbelief when he said, "You know, there was no debris from a jetliner crash evident in photos of the Pentagon that day." His claim started me to read extensively about the events of the day.
Based upon my reading, published evidence leads me to a terribly disturbing conclusion as to the veracity of the official government accounts. Here are some of my questions. Can you answer them?
#1: In fact, no commercial jetliner debris - no engines, tail section, luggage, bodies, are visible in photos of the Pentagon just after whatever collided with it. Why has no film of any collision with the Pentagon ever been shown to the public despite the existence of all the Pentagon's surveillance cameras? Contrast that absence with the unendingly repeated films shown of the planes hitting the twin towers.
#2: The Pentagon is protected by surface-to-air missiles. Why were they not deployed to shoot down whatever it was that hit the building?
#3: The twin towers fell at almost free-fall velocity, which means that they had no resistance as they fell. If they "pancaked" down, as the official reports claim, the resistance of the lower floors would have drastically slowed the fall. The near-free-fall speed, the concrete dust that was so finely pulverized, and the molten structural steel, are evidence that explosions, not planes, brought down the towers - a demolition process that must have been put into effect well prior to 9/11.
#4: Building 7 of the World Trade Center was reported to have been "pulled," as in a planned demolition, collapsing at free-fall velocity later the same day, never having been hit by the planes that hit the twin towers. It takes days to set explosives in a building to prepare it for demolition. Those explosives must have been placed also in that building prior to 9/11.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 162
jason
posted 9/28/07 @ 2:56 AM EST
Thank you for writing this article - many people don't realize that an increasingly large number of credible experts share this same opinion. Once you look at what happened on 9/11 objectively, there is only one conclusion that makes any sense. (Continued…)
Dr Eric Beeth
posted 9/28/07 @ 4:35 AM EST
I hope we will add Professor and Dean of Rutgers ?Newark University Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk to the long list of distinguished academics found on "patriotsquestion911 dot com" . (Continued…)
Mark
posted 9/28/07 @ 8:29 AM EST
It is obvious that the buildings were blown up on that day. One does not need to be an engineer to observe the destruction of three highrise buildings, the videos are readily available on the internet, and then ask yourself, do these buildings look as though they are collapsing, or do they look as though they are being blown to bits. (Continued…)
Thomas Spellman
posted 9/28/07 @ 8:42 AM EST
Wow A rational, thoughtful set of questions in a real newspaper. Now for some independent reporting!!
Peace Tom Spellman
Dr. Brent Igo
posted 9/28/07 @ 10:05 AM EST
Greetings from Clemson University, and thanks for helping to end the silence surrounding this issue, the most important our time.
Robert Brand
posted 9/28/07 @ 12:50 PM EST
Unfortunately, it seems that whoever controls the White House in 08 will not re-open an independent investigation of 9-11. What America is facing now is simply the fruit of a poisonous tree, the seeds of which were planted on 9-11. (Continued…)
Carol Brouillet
posted 9/28/07 @ 1:23 PM EST
We marched and demanded a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 in January 2002 and watched Bush and Cheney ask that the investigations be limited and overseen by the very men who deserved to be questioned for their role in 9/11- Porter Goss and Bob Graham, who had breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with the ISI's Lt. (Continued…)
chico
posted 9/28/07 @ 4:50 PM EST
Thank you for the truth, sir. The fact is that the bush team is and always will be the nazi victors sneaking out of wwII with a bag of psy-ops tricks and connections in the blood drinking circles, buggering us with all that demands cognitive dissonance. (Continued…)
Mark Stone
posted 9/28/07 @ 6:15 PM EST
I am in total agreement with the points raised here. There can be no question in the mind of anybody who neutrally considers the collapse of the buildings can possibly believe that their collapses were caused by anything but explosives. (Continued…)
Mark Stone
posted 9/28/07 @ 6:35 PM EST
There is another point that I would like to raise for discussion is the motive attributed to this act by President Bush.
Anybody with an understanding of the Muslim mindset will probably agree that the motive suggesting that they are jealous of our freedoms is preposterous. (Continued…)
Post a Comment