Thursday, 14 February 2008


There exists some extremely disturbing scientific evidence which totally undermines the official 911 story. It does not matter what theories you believe in, the evidence here speaks for itself:
The picture above shows MOLTEN STEEL being removed from the World Trade Centre rubble pile. However, from all accounts (even the official NISTs report concedes this point) the fires in the WTC buildings were too weak to cause such melting. Conventional building fires, including ones initiated with aviation kerosene, cannot raise the temperature of structural steel to its melting point of around 1300 degrees celsius. According to all the available data, the fires in the Towers could only have reached a maximum temperature of around 650 degrees celsius- yet here we can see steel so hot that it has taken on a yellow look (an observation that indicates a temperature of between 850-1000 degrees celsius !!).

There are only two ways which would enable this steel to reach such a high temperature.
1. In a blast furnace.
2. From Explosives.
The rubble pile was not a blast furnace.
Therefore one must assume that explosives were the most likely agent.

Furthermore, we have supporting eyewitness testimony from firefighters and civilians which reveals that many of them felt, and were knocked over by, huge explosions occurring in the lower floors of the WTC buildings -far away from the fire zones.

Recent analysis conducted by physics Professor Steven Jones has now uncovered the chemical signature for the explosive THERMATE in multiple samples taken from the WTC steel and dust- proving, without doubt, that explosives were used. The newly formed, Architects for 911 Truth organisation, with over 200 building professionals onboard, concurs with these findings.

The science here is clear cut. Whatever one thinks about the various theories floating around out there, one thing is certain: The Twin Towers (and Building 7) at the World Trade Centre site were rigged with explosives. Most importantly, such an operation would take many weeks to plan and carry out. Therefore, part of the 911 attacks against the World Trade Centre complex MUST have been an "Inside Job" as Bin Laden's men would not have had the necessary time or access to wire these buildings.

The charade must end. If we are honest with ourselves we must now seriously consider ALL the evidence-- including material which indicates the complicity of certain elements within the US government in the attacks of September 11.[1] A new independent criminal investigation must be launched and the "war on terror" must end.


spoco2 said...

Heya Steve, Simon here... I'm afraid I can't believe the 911 conspiracy theories... this video says much of what I think :)

SpookyPunkos said...

A another junk "debunking" video- this time from the History Channel with reference to a number of disproven official reports and featuring the disinformation artists at Popular Mechanics.

Seriously, the debate has moved on a long way from here. :(

The information put out by the debunkers in the video is bunk. These sorts of videos rely on appeals to authority without adequate appraisal of the facts- or regard to scientific principles or knowledge.

The so called "experts" here are actually LYING their arses off.

Example 1: The Demolition guy says the industry does not use the term "Pull it." What a crock. Do some basic fact checking and you'll see.

Example 2: The Structural Engineers say the Fire eventually caused WTC 7 to collapse. Look at the smoke, where is the orange hot inferno that would be required to weaken the steel ?
Smoking, flaming fires, office- type fires (or even fires fuelled by stored deisel fuel) would be insufficient to weaken the steel beams as they claim (do the math on this). And consider previous, much hotter fires in other high rise buildings, fires that caused NO damage to those buildings' structures.

Example 3: The video says that WTC 7 was severely damaged, but we never see the extent of the damage (note: many have requested that PM release their "horde" of pics they claim to possess showing the damage- but they refuse). WTC 3,4,5,6 were also damaged, some more severely than WTC 7 (and with fires) yet none of these collapsed.

Example 4: The Engineers in the vid also imply the building was designed weaker than it should have been, but infact, the beams used to support the weight were massively overengineered to deal with WTC 7's unique construction. Detailed construction plans and independent analysis are available on this.

Example 5: The video reports that the collapse was a "classic progressive collapse"- a term only recently invented so as to quanitify the unique nature of the 911 building "failures". There was nothing "classic" about it- except in terms of a controlled demolition- it exhibited all the features of such an event.

What is most galling is that the video says there is no hard demolition evidence whilst ignoring/denying evidence such as:

1. the significance of the 6.6 seconds symmetrical freefall collapse of WTC 7 -a truly puzzling sign that indicated there was little or no resistance offered by the building's undamaged structure, and;
2. The fact that IR photos revealed hot spots at World Trade Centre 7 in the order of 700 degrees C. The office fires were not of that magnitude, so where did the heat come from ? (clue- it could not have been the deisel fuel or combustables in the rubble)

People who watch this stuff and believe it don't really understand the issues. You need to see what people have said about the NIST report and Building 7. The video you cite is a montage of lies.

Please see my other more detailed replies to your later comments on the Blog in March.