9/11 Truth Manifesto

March 29th, 2008, 11:19 AM

How many cars melt when they catch fire, there is no lack of air for that kind of fire, yet the 'thin metal' still holds its shape.

What's an r/w? Why discredit those with a scientific background just because the article is on the 'net'?

March 29th, 2008, 11:40 AM

Look I'm not going to argue this with you. Call your local Fire Dept. I don't really care what you want to believe or not believe. I've seen cars burn completely to the ground with the right amount of accelerant. Of which the WTC was in no short supply of.

Dumpster fires are very much like what happened in the after math of the collapse. An enclosed space, full of accelerants. Nothing like it to create heat. Again, call your local Fire Dept. if you doubt that. I'm sure, like mine, they aren't in on the conspiracy.

Real World.

Simple, half the **** quoted is taken out of context, misrepresented, completely false, credentials are over stated and so on. Time and time again I see the label 'Leading explosives expert', 'Leading demolition expert', 'Leading explosives demolition expert', yet none of the names pop up on the boards of directors, the employee list or company rosters for any of the worlds short list of top 'Explosives Demolition' companies...Odd that.

Then you have all these great big 'Leading Experts' (read talking heads) blathering about this and that, while comparing the WTC to a litany of other buildings that have burned and not collapsed, or other buildings that have collapsed and finding variances and inconsistencies. Wel frickin' d'uh!!!

The WTC's were a unique structure and there is absolutely no model of comparison, period.

But that doesn't stop the 'Leading Expert' from offering a load of shyte like it was gospel, via the net.

You're welcome to the 'truthiness' of the net. I like reality much better.

March 29th, 2008, 11:56 AM

All I asked for was a picture, you didn't/couldn't supply one. If you close the metal lid of a dumpster the fire will just smolder.

Real World, just what is that when it comes to information? Unnamed sources, highly place unnamed official? Are you getting personal notes from the Prez. and the Pentagon?

Do you even know what happens to steel when it heats up, the heat is conducted away from the source.

It's obvious you aren't interested in reading anything that would put your reality at risk, so why bother even trying to. The general mode to covering your ass when caught in a lie is to discredit the one who is exposing it, rather than simple answer the question.

March 29th, 2008, 12:07 PM

Again, feel free to call your local Fire Dpet. if you find my assertion suspect. Or do you think they're in on the conspiracy or not 'expert' enough?



No actually I don't!!! I don't work with steel, I don't have verifiable TSSA and CWB licenses in welding in all positions on multiple types of metal. I don't know more engineers and architects then the average Joe. I didn't spring from a family line that can claim amongst its member several high steel workers.

Nope, I have no idea what steel is really.

You're absolutely correct, I don't read into things that put reality at risk. I like reality just the way it is...real. That ain't what you're selling.
Have you called your local Fire Dept yet?

March 29th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Debunking the molten steel argument

http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html

March 29th, 2008, 12:42 PM

Would that be like the "official report" that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

Why does it matter?

We have absolute proof that governments lie. That they lied or didn't lie about the destruction of the WTC is making many folk wonder but in the final analysis what difference does it make?

March 29th, 2008, 01:12 PM

Yeah, they told me to close the lid. Once I explained that they wasn't any fire they told me to quit wasting their time.

Nice video, so if the walls gave way because the floor trusses 'pulled them in'. (discounting all the support the 4" of concrete on each floor that would resist ant bending) Heated steel expands, before they 'sagged' they should have pushed outward. Nor does the video touch on that massively strong 'inner-core' as to why it started to collapse at the very same moment the walls showed any movement. (about the 2min mark). If the 'inner-core' was resisting the collapse it should have fallen over to the most injured side. It didn't.

We could trade videos all day long.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQoxEoa1NIg&feature=related

March 29th, 2008, 01:13 PM

Like the Kennedy assassination, the truth will never out or be pushed up to 2100 so that no-one will care. In my opinion it was an inside job because the WTC needed to be torn down for health reasons. As it turned out more people have died in Iraq than the WTC, but then again that's economics U.S. style.

March 29th, 2008, 01:21 PM



I guess my local foundation savers are friendlier, or it's because I know them all...lol.. none the less.

Didn't you just accuse me of knowing nothing about steel?

A span of any length will bend before the expansion overtly shows. Even then, expansion is oft minimal. mere inches. As apposed to feet in unchecked sagging.

We could trade videos all day long.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQoxEoa1NIg&feature=related[/quote]

And again supported by?????????

Yep, nothing.

March 29th, 2008, 04:29 PM

We already know the truth. 19 Arab guys flew planes into American buildings.

Its just that people refuse to believe what they saw.

But then again, people believe the moon landing was faked.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

March 29th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Some of which are still alive, you just gotta love how those passports came through all that without even being scorched.

March 30th, 2008, 10:18 AM

Your smiley says it all!! I can't believe I let myself get suckered into watching these links. It couldn't have happened according to the "laws of science" What laws are those I wonder. And still with the "they fell in 10 seconds" nonsense. Astounding. Just astounding.

March 30th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-UpAmerican Society of Civil Engineers lied about inability of skyscrapers to withstand airliner impacts Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
reddit_url='http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2008/032608_wtc_coverup.htm' reddit_title='Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-Up'

"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers."
The group are also under scrutiny for their investigation of the failure of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina.
Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, "accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."
As we reported last year, architectural drawings of the World Trade Center that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction were used by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) during their study, but not before they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections. These facts were buried in the FEMA-funded ASCE report and contradictory conclusions were offered despite the fact that the group had access to the diagrams.
Numerous different World Trade Center designers and construction specialists are on record as having ruled out the possibility that multiple commercial jetliner impacts could bring the towers down. Such comments were made on a regular basis ever since the towers were first conceived and built.
A February 3, 1964 white paper which was written during the design phase of the towers stated, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."

A February 27 1993 Seattle Times article entitled Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision quotes John Skilling, head structural engineerfor the WTC.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said Skilling.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
In a telling afterthought, Skilling said that the only way the building could be brought down was by means of well-placed explosives rigged by top experts.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it," he said.
In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane."
"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany.

Also in early 2001, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said on camera, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions - completely contradicting his previous statements and exhaustive studies carried out since the 60's about the towers' ability to withstand jetliner impacts.
Allegations of cover-up directed at The American Society of Civil Engineers are just the latest chapter in a series of hammer blows for the credibility of the official 9/11 story, arriving on the back of last month's exposé of 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow's ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack.

March 30th, 2008, 06:39 PM

WTC molten molybdenum cover-up

Forensic evidence of controlled demolitions at the World Trade Center continues to pile up. The official conspiracy theory, of three high-rise collapses resulting from impact damage and regular office compartment fires caused by "suicidal Muslim aircraft hijackers", can only be sustained by criminal control of media, political and business leaders.
Solid evidence of molten iron and extremely high temperatures that cannot be accounted for by hydrocarbons burning in air, corroborates numerous reports of molten steel that was still running weeks after the 9/11 attacks, and confirms that the perpetrators employed aluminothermic reactions as accelerants in order to guarantee total collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Conventional compartment fires (even including jet fuel which in any case burns up within a few minutes) are only capable of maximum gas temperatures around 1,000 ºC or 1,832 ºF. And that's for 20 minutes or so at any particular point whilst local combustibles are consumed, before cooling to 500 ºC or lower. In fact, the NIST paint study concluded that "of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels, only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC". And a core column tested which had some surrounding fire was found to have peaked at lower than 200 ºC.
A paper by Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe in the Volume 19 - January 2008 online edition of the Journal of 9/11 Studies has details of analyses of the WTC dust. An "abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules) in the WTC dust samples" was observed. Many of these spherules were found to be iron-rich, indicating that iron had melted. The melting point of iron is 1,538 °C (2,800 °F). There is also evidence of molten molybdenum (melting point 2,623 ºC = 4,753 ºF).
The Jones et al paper starts with their own analysis of dust samples, and goes on to discuss relevant previously published data. Here is an excerpt.


Abstract
In an effort to better understand the conditions that led to complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7, we apply scanning-electron-microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (XEDS) methods to analyze the dust generated, with an emphasis on observed micro-spheres in the WTC dust. The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories. The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. 1. Introduction
The events of 9/11/2001 were tragic and at the same time remarkable in their physical aspects, such as the completeness and rapidity of collapse of three skyscrapers and the large volume of fine toxic dust generated. In order to better understand these events, we obtained and examined two independent dust samples acquired very soon after 9/11/2001. The provenance of the two samples analyzed for this paper is described in the appendix. It is worth emphasizing that both of the samples were collected indoors and shortly after the 9/11/2001 event. One sample was collected on an indoor window sill on 9/14/2001, just three days after the disaster while searching for survivors in the rubble was ongoing, and in a building four blocks from ground zero. The other sample was acquired inside a fourth-floor apartment (whose upper windows broke during the WTC collapse) a few days later. We sought for samples acquired very soon after the collapses in order to drastically reduce any chance of contamination by clean-up operations (see Appendix). Furthermore, as we shall see, samples independently collected by other researchers corroborate the high-temperature indicators we observe.
2. Methods
A FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with an EDAX Genesis X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) system was used to acquire XEDS spectra. A silicon detector (SiLi) with resolution better than 135 eV was used. The display resolution was set to 10 eV per channel. The operating conditions for the dust analyses were 20 keV, and 60-120 second acquisition time (livetime). The samples were analyzed at a 10 millimeter working distance and were mounted on carbon conductive tabs. Optical examination of the dust samples was conducted using a stereomicroscope (Nikon Epiphot 200) having a magnification range from 10-200X .
3. Results
We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules) in the WTC dust samples as shown in figure 1 (optical microscope) and figure 2 (

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6178

March 30th, 2008, 10:41 PM

WAIT....

Someone landed on the moon!?

March 31st, 2008, 07:45 AM

NAH!!! that was another lie.......

March 31st, 2008, 07:48 AM

March 31st, 2008, 01:48 PM

The bankers will do anything. Nothing is beneath them. If they are not eliminated we will go to war forever because that's what the scum at the top live on.