Coming soon to a theater near you, “United 93” will solidify an already emotional response to the catastrophic Sept. 11 attacks. The film courageously exploits a questionable day. Yes, you read that right, a questionable day.

How did three steel-structured buildings collapse within hours from burning jet fuel? How are some of the alleged hijackers still alive? How did a plane crash into one of the most heavily guarded U.S. buildings? Why did the third World Trade Center building, Building 7, collapse when it wasn’t even hit by a plane?

Never before in history had a steel-frame skyscraper collapsed because of a fire. Any physics book will explain that a jet-fuel fire burns at a theoretical maximum of 1700 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas steel begins to melt at 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. If the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire, then they amazingly defied physics. Moreover, tests conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency proved that very hot fires do not cause steel-framed buildings to collapse.

The 9/11 Commission Report says the top floors fell onto the floors below, causing the buildings to collapse straight down, as seen in video. If the towers were hit from the side, how could the buildings collapse straight down into their own foundations? If a jet fuel fire can not cause steel to melt, why were no steel columns sticking out of the ground in the aftermath?

Obviously, everyone already has preconceived notions about 9/11. And it is a very touchy subject for some of us. But when such a tragic event happens, we cannot let ourselves be blinded by our emotions. We must investigate the loose ends.

For example, how are some of the hijackers still alive, according to the BBC, Newsweek and the New Yorker?

Also, no plane ever crashed into WTC 7. It suffered fires on two different floors, caused by debris from the Twin Towers. On a PBS special, “Rebuilding America,” Larry Silverstein, lease holder of the WTC buildings, said the fire department commander called him saying that he wasn’t sure he was going to be able to control the fire in WTC 7, so Silverstein made the decision to “pull” and the building collapsed.

“Pulling” a building is jargon for demolishing a building with explosives. That Silverstein used this word might explain why the building looked like it collapsed due to explosives.

Not only did WTC 7 get limited media coverage, it received virtually no attention from the 9/11 Commission. The commission report didn’t even acknowledge that WTC 7 collapsed. If the report was extensive, the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 should have been investigated.

Within days after 9/11, steel from the WTC buildings got shipped to Asia to be melted down. This steel was criminal evidence. Typically, removing evidence from a crime scene is a federal offense. But the FBI allowed the removal in this case. If explosives had been used to break apart the steel columns, there would have been detectable signs on the salvaged steel. Unfortunately, we will never know.

The Pentagon is perhaps the most heavily guarded U.S. building in the country and has one of the best radar systems in the world, yet a 757 smashed into it. Is this possible? Maybe not. A photograph taken by Cpl. Jason Ingersoll of the U.S. Marine Corps photo lab shows the Pentagon’s west wing shortly after the attack when fire trucks arrived and before the facade collapsed. There is no visible wreckage of the 757. More importantly, the facade had not collapsed yet. How can a 757 plow through a building, yet leave the facade still standing for at least a half-hour, according to the official report?

Questions concerning 9/11 will undoubtedly persist to remain unanswered. Instead, posing as answers will be conspiracy theories. To be sure of the term, Merriam Webster’s dictionary describes a conspiracy as a secret plot to do an unlawful or wrongful act. Now the question needs to be asked, isn’t the official story a conspiracy theory?