Wednesday, 12 November 2008

THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT ENDS THE 911 TRUTH DEBATE.

There exists some extremely disturbing scientific evidence which totally undermines the official 911 story. It does not matter what theories you believe in, the material 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 far too weak to cause such melting. Conventional building fires, including ones initiated with aviation kerosene, simply 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 the temperature must be 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.

Critically, scientific analysis conducted by physics Professor Steven Jones has 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 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 accept there is damning physical (forensic) evidence that undermines the official story. Certain elements within the US government appear complicit in the attacks of September 11.[1] A new independent criminal investigation must be launched and the phony "war on terror" stopped.

(For a more detailed analysis on the physics of the WTC collapses see Steven Jones' paper: Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? [PDF] and visit Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, an organisation with over 500 building professionals who agree with these findings.)

Note: I will continue to post this sort of information at this blog, ad infinitum, until we see a proper criminal investigation launched into 911.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 12th, 2008.]

2 comments:

Arthur Scheuerman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SpookyPunkos said...

Arthur, the repetition of your disinformation nonsense on this blog is simply not acceptable. Practically everything you have said here is a gross distortion of fact and has been thoroughly debunked by myself in previous encounters. I am forced to delete your entry since you have failed to address my earlier deconstruction of your comments. Unless you begin acting in a civilised manner and debate me, I must consider repeat actions by yourself as spamming.

In this instance, even though I have deleted your comment, I will address some of your points since your obfuscations need to be exposed for the benefit of readers to this blog.

1. You claim that the picture does not show molten steel. Although it is not technically a liquid (ie molten) the colour indicates this steel is extremely hot and close to such a state. The yellow colouring indicates temperatures far hotter than what could have been generated in the building fire. Using the term "molten" is not entirely inappropriate in this instance. You are playing word games here.

2. You say that the steel was likely heated in the rubble in conditions that acted as a blacksmith's forge. This is total rubbish and you must know it. For one thing there is not enough fuel to generate the temperatures you describe. A blacksmith's forge relies on a sea of coals in which the metals are submerged. Crushed carpet and furniture do not maketh such a condition. Such false analogies will not work here Arthur.

3. You have missed the point about the once molten iron rich spheres, that have been found all throughout the dust. Analysis of these spheres shows that they are NOT due to oxyacetylene torches used in the building construction or clean-up effort. They are clearly the result of a THERMATE incendiary reaction (explosives). For a supposedly experienced fire expert you don't seem to understand the evidnce very well- even though this has been explained to you before. In fact, you're acting exactly as if you were deliberately tring to hide the significance of the evidence here. I think you must know that acting to help cover up an act of treason is, in itself, a crime.

4. Most disturbingly of all you try to equate reports of Molten Steel seen in the rubble with battery lead and other unlikely materials that have melted at a low temperature. This does not match the "lava" or "foundry" like descriptions that were reported. Melted lead at 327 degrees celsius is silver in colour. Once again you should know this, so why put up such an idiotic argument unless of course you are acting deliberately to assist in the cover-up ?

Arthur, it's obvious you are a "sophisticated" troll. You are not fooling anyone here with your disinfo. It seems to me there are three reasons that may cause you to post such disingenuous material: that you are a paid shill for the government, that you are being extorted or that you are acting for "ideological" reasons. Certainly, your actions do not reflect any scientific, evidence based, position.