Tuesday, 6 January 2009

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, January 6th, 2009.]

8 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I am curious. It is my understanding that one of the federal officials responsible for tracking Osama bin laden, a guy named O'brien, I can't remember exactly, was on his trail, so the story went, but left the gov. and was working at the Towers in their security department. He supposedly died during the collapse of the Towers. Do you know this story? Can you speak to what the story with this guy might have been?

SpookyOne said...

I believe the FBI agent in question was named John O'Neill.

He was a "maverick" investigator with the FBI responsible for looking into the attack on the USS Cole and also perhaps the embassy bombings.

His investigations in Yemen were derailed by the US ambassador I believe. The investigation was denied access to relevant authorities or documents.

I find it odd that the US ambassador would do such a thing unless Bin Laden was being protected. After all a number of US sailors were killed in the Cole attack.

Eventually O'Neill quit the FBI although he was still "hot on the trail" of Bin Laden. Politically he was given little or no support - he had been a non-conformist the whole of his career, ruffling the feathers of his superiors.

Ultimately I think O'Neill was targeted because if he looked too closely he might find the continuing connections (and he would have suspected them) between Bin Laden and the CIA - connections which I think were still in operation during the late 90s.

The Cole attack may have also been a false flag attack to stir up trouble. I cannot confirm this, but we do know the investigation was thwarted by our own side.

Bin Laden himself may simply have been a patsy for on going intelligence operations with various imposters and intelligence "assets" building up a false trail of evidence before 911.

We know that at various times before 911 other FBI agents and officals were called off, or had their investigations sabotaged.

O'Neill, the man who would have worked out a lot of what was going, could not have been allowed to live after 911, especially because any signs of a false story would have led him to recall his past attempts at investigations.

The maverick might have spoken out, and with his inside knowledge, could have implicated the government in various instances pre-911 where Bin Laden investigations were stopped. This only makes good sense if the attacks were allowed to happen, or if the attacks were made to look as if Bin Laden was the culprit. And we know from the forensics, that Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks except to be "identifed" as the perp.

Personally I think O'Neill was assassinated before the WTC attack and his body dumped in the building where he worked. He could have been unlucky enough to have died whe the aircraft hit, but I think, more likely, that he would have been taken out first to guarantee his demise.

steven andresen said...

spook,

But I find it odd that he worked in the Towers.

Why would he go there?

It is a suspicious coincidence. You argue that Oneal was a good guy on the trail of Bin Laden for a long time, then he got fed up with the pursuit because he was given so much resistance.

If that is true, then it seems too coincidental that he would have been hired on security for the Towers.

Do you think that he was head of demolition operations in the Towers before 9-11? Did he act as a cover for the operation because he had this reputation as a credible investigator?

If you are correct about there being bombs planted in the buildings, and it took weeks or months to accomplish that, then why shouldn't ONeal have been aware of it?

The business of "ruffling the feathers of his superiors" his whole career seems suspicious to me also. Fox Muldar is like that. A maverick his whole career. But, that is too much a thespic creation I suspect. No one spends a very long career or gets very much done making one's superiors unhappy.

His drama actually takes away from our curiosity about the Cole. Was that a false flag? And why hasn't that been factored into the 9-11 story?

I thought Bin Laden was being dialyzed in a clinic somewhere, maybe Yemen, in September of that year. I thought he was in complete renal failure for years before he died.

SpookyOne said...

Not everyone in the FBI is corrupt and I think that John O'Neill was such a person.

O'Neill took up his position at the WTC only days before the attacks. I think he was offered the job after he quit the FBI. What a coincidence eh !?

And I don't think he knew what was going on.

I suspect during his time at the FBI he followed the superficial workings of the Bin Laden story and may have been subject to information "given" to him by people running intelligence.

I know he was involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC where an FBI informant/asset knew in advance the plot, so that makes me a little bit suspicious because this attack was not stopped.

The question is who knew what about what ? The higher ups, with whom O'Neill tangled, probably got their positions through working within the system and keeping a lid on high level corrupt practice ie. playing ball with the establishment. Anyone being chosen to head the Washington Office would have to fit the bill- director Mueller has a lot to answer for in blocking pre-911 investigations.

O'Neill was middle management, and although aware of some problems in the FBI (their crime lab made numerous well publicised "mistakes" over the course of many years) he was not priviledge to everything.

I know before 911 people like
FBI Agent Coleen Rowley became aware of elements of the plot, or rather the frame up, and found their efforts "sabotaged" by the FBI Washingtom Office.

So what we have here is lower level people, doing their jobs, running across suspicious circumstances whilst their bosses revoke, delay and otherwise hinder their investigations which may intrude upon classified military operations.

It is likely that high level FBI heads were told that certain "Bin Laden agents", like those learning to fly, were actually intelligence agents and that FBI investigations were to be terminated. In this way the FBI heads might have been acting in good faith.
After the fact the heads might have realised what had happened and were threatened in various ways. They could also have been on "the take" from the get go and kept quiet.

And yes, Bin Laden was sick in the years leading up to 911, and seems to have died a few months later. It is likely he received medical treatment at a middle eastern hospital soon before 911 but I have not looked into this particular detail.

Anyway, all this material never stopped people writing books about terrorist cells and Al Qaeda, as if there was little or no involvement coming from the intelligence world. The whole idea of an elaborate Al Qaeda network is the carefully nurtured creation of various spook directors designed to provide an enemy- and a credible one at that. Yes, there are real fanatics, but there are also people playing these groups, and having fake agents or assets of their own.

You have Pakistan ISI and Saudi intel (and prob the Mossad) running or sponsoring a lot of people who were "playing the terrorist role". The terrorists are very useful to have because they represent an enemy that one can use to justify their operations and expenditure. It's like 1984- a fictional enemy or war keeping the people in line. It makes these groups indispensable to politicians who believe what news they are fed about a terror threat.

ps. The Cole is an interesting case, but is now a side issue to the central focus on the 911 evidence. By going for the bigger prize a later investigation here will become more successful.

And we cannot be wrong about bombs being planted in the WTC buildings. There is no "if" here. The evidence is literally overwhelming.

We know from the forensic proof that bombs must have been used, and it is from this concrete position we must proceed.

steven andresen said...

You have explained that a false flag operation is where the Israelis, for example, create a pro Palestinian but religious organization to undermine the secular Fatah run PLO. Hamas when it began was a false flag operation. It said it was created in the interest of Palestinians, but it was run by Israelis.

This idea could be extended to cover the situation where someone who says he's investigating Bin Laden and organized terrorism, but is actually a cover for those elements you have spoken about who organized our own little Pearl Harbor on the Hudson.

This is the idea behind my suspicions about ONeal. You say he was asked offhandedly only a few days before the Towers went down to come on as security.

If ONeal was such a credible investigator, and he had been pushed out of the FBI after ruffling his superior's feathers for so long, then it seems suspicious to me that he would have been hired on at the Towers. Surely the people who were planting the bombs and must have been in control of security would not have wanted ONeal around.

Even for a few days.

This makes me think that his presence was supposed to support the cover story and make it less plausible that anything untoward could have been going on under ONeal, the credible investigator's, nose.

It occurs to me that ONeal could have been given leads. Let's say you want to cover up a crime. Yet, you want to deflect suspicion on yourself. So, you give an investigator like ONeal leads that make him go here and there thinking he was on the trail of Bin Laden and terrorist cells. He becomes a credible if annoying person in the FBI. Like Fox. Designed to be a credible stamper out of evil doers. So, the guy gives up because all the leads he's given from the right hand which he tries to pursue, he's told to ignore by the left hand.

Then he's asked to work at the Towers? I wonder whether he was the model for how to confuse 9-11 investigators thereafter?

I do not know details about ONeal and his story. I'm just saying, you have not cleared up my suspicions.

steven andresen said...

spook,

In re-reading your argument, it just seems we disagree about whether ONeil was a dupe, as you suggest, or part of the cover-up, as I suspect.

At this point, it doesn't matter to me, so long as his story is looked at a little closer.

When you tell me that the evidence shows that bombs were planted and that the exposure of the inside job has to proceed from there, what else do you mean but try to expose the various efforts made to support the recieved story about hijackers?

Wouldn't one of those supports be the coincidental presence of a credible investigator at the Towers? So, how could there have been bombs planted and security compromised with O'Neil on the job?

The fact that the previous bombing of the Towers was run by the FBI is another part of the cover-up. That and the practice of running "false flag" ops goes to the means by which the inside job was accomplished.

The fact that Bin Laden was in renal failure and died soon after 9-11, probably, and yet we've been given the story that he's sent out videos to us, goes to a continuing cover-upp run from the inside.

One of the ways in which you successfully get away with murder is to make sure people think someone else has done the crime. So, it would seem that blaming Bin Laden and Al Queda for 9-11 and a lot of other things has to be suspicious, especially if Bin Laden is dead.

If you are in renal failure on dialysis, you're basically dead. You don't have the energy to be a criminal mastermind.

I agree that the physical evidence is very important. But, with all these other issues pointing to hijackers, it will still be difficult for people to take you seriously.

steven andresen said...

spook,

I'm sorry to put all this type down, but it seems you invite comment and input.

This is your situation: An old man of 70 is admitted to the emergency room. He's sick and soon dies. The doctors say he died of a heart attack. You are his nephew and are concerned that things don't seem to make sense. He just had a test showing that he had no heart disease. You think perhaps there was some other cause to his death. You manage to get a blood sample and have it analysed. It shows the man had a lethal amount of an exotic poison in his blood. You show everyone that he had this poison in his blood, but no one seems to pay any attention to your suspicions and evidence. They insist that the man died of natural causes related to his heart attack.

The problem for you is that if he died of poison then it was an unnatural death and there is a poisoner on the loose.

You have the evidence that the Towers did not die of hijackers and planes and fire, but they were brought down by poison/bombs.

How do you proceed when no one wants to listen to you, and everyone is listening to the doctors about heart attacks?

I say it will not be enough to keep pointing at the poison.

SpookyOne said...

I think you are mistaken about the fact that people won't be interested in evidence proving 911 was an inside job.

Your analogy seems a bit off too. You write that an old man is admitted to the emergency ward and that the options are heart attack or poison. That we have a toxicology test showing poison and that all the doctors insist it's a heart attack and that no one will listen.

I think a more accurate analogy is that we have a victim who has been shot three times through the back of the head, that the bullets in the murder weapon don't match the ballistics, that the gun wasn't even fired, and that the "doctors" who all say it was suicide are known employees of the mafia. Furthermore we find that the mafia had a well known publicised hit out on the individual. Plus we also have hundreds of independent doctors pointing to the glaringly obvious evidence of murder (that it was impossible for this to be suicide), but that the media, so far, has kept a lid on their comments.

If hundreds of scientists, architects and engineers can can show that the attacks were blatantly not the work of terrorists and that this was widely known, then I think that's pretty interesting and that people won't be confused about a murder/suicide didactic.

That the work of NIST can be shown to be completely bankrupt, along with the 911 Commission- that's pretty significant.

Like I said before I give people credit.

Steve, the physical evidence showing the 911 attacks were an inside job is damning. All it takes to understand this is a little reflection & some education.

Whether O'Neill was a dupe or not, is up to interpretation. The evidence as to what happened is not concrete. I personally think he was murdered, but that's just my opinion. I find it strange that he did end up at the WTC and died.

If he was in on the attacks, maybe they shut him up because he could not be completely trusted, or he was not in on the attacks and he was killed due to his ability to connect the dots. The fact remains he was killed in the WTC, which I find very suspicious knowing the attacks were an inside job.

Also, please listen to that 911 post that has 4 clips from the Alex Jones radio show interview with Kevin Ryan. It'll help you to understand how the towers may have been rigged- during the fireproofing upgrades.

And don't assume the security wasn't compromised either. Although O'Neill took up his job days before the attacks, I would assume much of the work was already completed by then and that the existing security was not, as the researchers point out, trustworthy.