Et puisque vous avez l’air d’accorder tant de crédit à Rue 89, feuille de chou inconnue dans le monde, je vous renvoie à un journaliste d’investigation internationalement reconnu et titulaire de nombreux prix : Robert Fisk.

Or c’est curieux, mais il se pose les mêmes questions que Marion Cotillard à propos du 911 !

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html

" 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 ? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled ? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field ? Again, I’m not talking about the crazed « research » of David Icke’s Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

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 ? (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 ? 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. 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 »."