Revisiting 9/11 by John Kusumi

Article by John Kusumi at COTO Report, commenting on our recent successes, and presenting his take on unanswered questions..

Even harsh critics of the 9/11 truth movement should admit that it’s gaining lately.

An ancient Chinese curse says, “May you live in interesting times.” In their college years, Baby Boomers reacted to the Vietnam war. The Civil Rights movement; high profile political assassinations; and Watergate also made a big impression. In my GenX college years, we reacted to President Reagan; Tiananmen Square; watched the Cold War end; and noted the first Gulf War as the U.S. military kicked the forces of Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Some number of people in Generation Y (the Millenials, who are now 28 and younger) can say, “I went to college, and what I learned was that 9/11 was an inside job.” Several influences are contending for the attention of that generation: the 9/11 Truth movement; the pro-Constitution and end-the-Fed movements (call it the Ron Paul movement); and the Tea Party movement. And, GenY is making its own movement against budget cuts to higher education.

Most of the matters above are outside the scope of this article, but when the 9/11 Truth movement holds sway, there is need to correct the national narrative. That national narrative has been hijacked by the faces of “Old Media,” rendering stories that are bought, paid for, and/or dictated by those who hold undue sway in the public discourse.
Brass tacks about 9/11

The 9/11 truth movement, if not conclusive, is at least persuasive. Most readers should be aware that they are out there, with evidence that “9/11 was an inside job,” or as I prefer to phrase it, 9/11 had inside help.

For evidence, they make cases out of (A.) things that did happen on 9/11 (improper behavior of solidly-constructed buildings; anchormen fingering Bin Laden by lunchtime; and even anchormen reporting that Building 7 fell before the fact of the occurrence of the fall of Building 7) –and– (B.) things that did not happen in relation to 9/11 (interception by NORAD of diverted airplanes, defense of the Pentagon, and the fact that authorities did not release passenger lists, black box recordings, nor a picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon).

For a short article, I cannot go into all of the ins and outs of each suspicious thing. But, I’ve compiled a list of 11 unanswered questions — matters about which authorities are silent. I believe that any layman can understand these 11 questions, and that we lack a national narrative to adequately account for these points raised.

(a) Where were the interceptors of NORAD? Why was there no response from America’s air defenses? (b) Who gets to hit the Pentagon, of all places? Of all places to be undefended, where were Pentagon defenses? (c) How did those buildings fall so quickly? Why was the scene “too Hollywood,” such an exactly fatal blow on such a pristine clear day? (d) Why did the anchormen know that it was Osama Bin Laden by lunchtime? (e) Why did the FBI have mug shots of these dead hijackers already on file, like a prepared slide? (f) Why did a third skyscraper, Building 7, that was not hit by an airplane fall? (g) Why were passenger lists not released? (h) Why were the black boxes not recovered, or not released? (i) Why was there no investigation by the NTSB? (j) Why did families have to push for a year before there was any investigation of any sort? (k) Why did no one lose their job?

Whether for their own convenience or for more sinister reasons, political pundits like to avoid tar babies, and this issue is definitely a tar baby. If one wades into the above thicket, there could be a lot of back-and-forth as one side or another asserts, proves, or defends each point. My own preferred tack goes to the physics involved in the buildings’ destruction.

A group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( has been collecting signatures on their petition for a new 9/11 investigation. I signed on in the “supporters” section, since I am not an architect nor engineer, except with software. I am a software developer and “1984 independent Presidential candidate,” as it identifies me there. I am no more nor less than that, but I added my view into the “Personal 9/11 Statement” field that accompanies signatures at that web site. I said,

“Buildings do not spontaneously pulverize from fires, otherwise we would never need demolition experts to carefully bring down buildings — Why should that profession exist if a simple match will do the job to bring down steel framed skyscrapers? That’s a tongue-in-cheek question, but it highlights a serious point: Those buildings had assistance to fall on 9/11. We should all demand an inquiry to uncover the details, culprits, and to initiate prosecution for those criminal culprits who must be brought to justice.”

There is “reductio ad absurdum” at work in this situation. Wikipedia notes that “in formal logic, ‘absurdity’ applies only to impossible self-contradiction.”
Once more around this block

It’s not the first time these matters have been discussed, but some Americans are casual observers and would not have taken this in yet. For their benefit I will restate the following.

The official cover story about 9/11 introduces a new brand of physics by claiming that the impact of jetliners, and resulting fires, weakened the structures and brought down those buildings in a “pancake collapse.”

The following is absolutely true, no matter who is the source that relays it to you: From the late 1960s up to 9/11/2001, it was public knowledge that the World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner. This was common wisdom, because it was part of the design from the architects in this high-profile construction project.

Jet fuel is essentially kerosene. There is a particular temperature at which it burns, and that temperature is lower than the melting point of steel. In your house, you may have a kerosene heater or cooking stove, which means that you yourself may burn kerosene — but the equipment does not melt down! The melting point of steel is far higher than that temperature.

So, what brought down those buildings? Airliner impact? No, that’s discounted from the above information and the fact that the buildings continued to stand during the first hour after they were hit.

What brought down those buildings? Fires from jet fuel? No, that’s discounted from the above information.

By process of elimination, we are left to surmise that extra energy, such as explosive demolition, must have caused the destruction as witnessed on 9/11. In fact, Building 7 was a third skyscraper which collapsed on that day, and it was not hit by an airplane. Hence, even those who think that airliner impact and jet fuel are plausible ways to explain the first two skyscraper collapses are left to scratch their heads, because airliner impact and concerns about jet fuel do not apply to the THIRD skyscraper which collapsed in New York at Ground Zero.

They can’t explain Building 7 ...

Read the rest at . Put in a comment a say hi.