Friday, December 22, 2006
We mentioned elsewhere that there was melted steel at the World Trade Center (WTC). We mentioned how I-beam steel showed up in photographs where certain pieces of such steel was cut on the same angle used in controlled demolition and that the cut looked just like the results of thermite or thermate also used in controlled demolition. It had the melted appearance at the cut, similar to the look of melted candle wax but less runny. We also mentioned the molten aspect at the WTC.
It appears that the reports of molten steel at the World Trade Center ground zero were grossly suppressed in formal investigations and reports. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report of September 2005 dismisses the issue. It says the following:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
[Since the primary stated objective of the NIST 9/11 investigation was to determine the cause]
Many more people seem to have seen and reported the molten steel than was reported in the mainstream news or the official governmental reports. According to reports, emergency responders (including New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue member Sarah Atlas), engineers (including chief executive Institution of Structural Engineers, Keith Eaton of London), governmental officials (including New York City commissioner Kenneth Holden), healthcare experts (including assistant professor of Environmental Health at Johns Hopkins University, Alison Geyh), lead contractors (including president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, Peter Tully and the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mark Loizeaux) and many, many workers at the site all said there was a great deal of molten metal. It was being reported at the time in the mainstream news.
Molten steel pools were found throughout the site. The steel was still molten even after five weeks after 9-11. Molten steel was also found under Building Seven.
This was at least 2800Â°F. Nothing in the construction materials or the furnishing, etc., in the buildings can account for this. The fuel in the planes or in cars parked below can not account for it. Besides, no plane hit Building Seven.
Incredibly, the NIST Report says the NIST found no such molten steel was at the site.
That's it. That's all there is on the issue in the forty-three volume set that comprises the NISST Report.
Remember, this official statement of the most important investigation denies emergency responders, engineers, governmental officials, healthcare experts, and lead contractors and workers at the site who all said there was much molten metal on site. It also flies in the face of the mainstream news reports at the time. Our brains are simply to be washed. History is simply to be rewritten. The powers that be have ordered it. Will it stand?
This is tragic. It is no innocent oversight. It is a deliberate cover-up, a thoroughly transparent attempted cover-up. Those who ordered the NIST to steer away from and around this issue are in the chain of command leading right to the top (or bottom, depending upon your viewpoint). Following that chain, one would run into fall guys willing to remain silent for the sake of the selfish rewards that in their minds trump the rewards of honesty. The dark side has its carrots and its sticks.
This molten-metal issue is one of the central issues with the 9-11 Truth Movement. The issue was well known to the NIST while it was investigating and drafting its Report. Yet, the Report glosses over the issue. This is a thought-control tactic, a perception management tactic likewise well known to those who have studied and considered such methods.
The NIST is held out to be expert in its field, and it is. The political-socialization process from cradle to grave is designed to elicit trust in the government amongst the masses, not to question especially the underlying motives. When combined (expert and conditioned, unquestioning trust), the masses are easily led under the constant, hypnotic condition.
However, we have seen time and again, all the mounting, irrefutable evidence of the fruits of that system that shows its dark heart. Much of the evidence is documented in this work.
We have seen the historical pattern of lying the nation(s) into war, the assassinations, the coup d'Ã©tats, the tortures, the political imprisonments, the mass murders, the cover-ups, the slavery, the ethnic cleansings, the environmental catastrophes, the endless stream of corporate scandals, the imperialism, the colonialism, and on and on. We have seen all these things around the globe and in the United States.
The same people who have engaged in, excused, and covered up these things are still running things. They haven't repented. Therefore, they will continue doing as their father's did before them. That's Biblical. That's the Gospel.
We have seen the use of glossing over things to shift the public's attention or in an attempt to contain the inquiry, whether private of public. We saw it with the John F. Kennedy, Sr., assassination and the Warren Commission as a glaring example. The ridiculous concept that one bullet did everything that that commission concluded will stand out in time.
We saw it with the lies and cover up of John Junior's death (that has all the earmarks of a Project Monarch assassination).
We also now know that another Kennedy, Robert, was assassinated by a CIA hit squad.
What are the odds of these being two lone assassins and one accident what with all the lies and misdirecting surrounding and permeating them? There are not such odds. The odds that these were not the result of conspiracies is not calculable, because it isn't even possible.
So, we have the NIST that is a hierarchy where underlings who want to pursue an issue are simply shutdown by orders from above. They are dismissed in their questions or from their positions.
What do we get from the president of the US? We get a speech at the UN saying that we must not allow questions, because it diverts the public perception of the guilt of the nineteen people officially claimed by the US government as the frontline of the attack masterminded and carried out exclusively by al Qaeda. Even though there is massive evidence to the contrary, the door is transparent but to remain locked.
What are the plans of the Democrats? They aren't about universal repentance and atonement. They're unwilling to expose the wound to the light so that real forgiveness and healing and transformation from the root can take place. That would be too uncomfortable, too bewildering, too egalitarian, too honest, too fair, too loving, too peaceful, too pure of heart, too right, too good, etc.
Truth and reconciliation is what they called it in South Africa. Imagine that, the supposed inferior Blacks in South Africa conceived and brought forth their best effort at truth and reconciliation whereas the supposed superior whites in the United States shun such soul searching and cleansing.
Oh, we aren't saying the South Africans went nearly far enough. Clearly they didn't. They did though go much further than the US. The US never dealt properly with the slavery issue after all, as just one example.
The NIST also avoided investigating the Thermite/Thermate sulfur issue.
It is true that the building designers and engineers didn't plan the building to withstand the fuel in the jetliners, just the impact. It is also true that the some fireproofing was falling off the steel long before 9-11. These facts don't address that steel was ejected some six hundred feet from the buildings and that the concrete and most of the other material not large metal was all turning to dust starting at the impact floors, in midair. It also doesn't address the numerous explosions heard and felt and directly experienced by people at the ground floor and basement levels. Those people were not interviewed in an official investigations that went to the top and were then disseminated to the general population. Neither does it address the free-fall speed of the collapse.
Neither does it explain that firefighters were able to walk on the floors that were supposedly at hundreds of degrees temperature, hot enough to cause the steel to lose enough strength to cause the collapse and calling for just two water lines to put out the fires. It doesn't explain people standing in the impact holes without any fire-fighting protective uniforms on. If fire hot enough to turn steel into molten metal brought down the buildings, how could this be? The jet fuel didn't burn hot enough or long enough to do that. What materials natural to the building could do it? The NIST Report doesn't say. The government has never said. That's the problem. They won't go there. They avoid it like the plague. There is a reason for that. It's called cover-up.
Now, with enough pressure, they will reopen the investigation with, again, carefully constructed limits to avoid exposure. They will have people address most of the issues but still insufficiently. They will do this just to wear out the 9-11 Truth Movement. It's a standard pattern. They have the deep pockets to allow them to do this.
It is telling that these issues have been systematically avoided. Models and super computer simulations could be run by panels of independent scientists chosen at random with no direction from above other than to give their best views at the end, including dissenting views.
The NIST Report was generated by people who have been subjected to the political-socialization process of the US their entire lives. They are all conditioned to think that the government cannot be subjected to conspiracies on a large scale and at the top and which cross many international borders. The NIST, regardless of any dissenters within whose views were not allowed to be a part of the Report, began with the assumption the jets alone brought down the buildings. The entire Report is designed around explaining the most likely sequence of events under that assumption. Their Report is not an investigation that started from scratch and was open to all possible causes. Mark H. Gaffney put it the following way:
NIST scientists worked backwards from the collapse, tweaking the extreme alternatives until their computer model spat out the desired result consistent with their assumption, which never wavered, that the 767 impacts ultimately were at the root of everything on 9/11.
The NIST computer simulations they did create didn't accurately account for damage to the South face of Building One. Nevertheless, they went ahead with their assumptions.
Gaffney also writes as follows:
Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. "The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours." The investigative team cautiously noted that the exposure of the floor systems to fire on 9/11 was "substantially different" than the conditions in the test furnaces, which was true enough. Yet, the team noted that "this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11."
This is critical, because the angle-clip failure at the trusses was given as the reason for the supposed pancake collapse. If the angle-clips didn't fail, then the jet-fuel fire and impact wasn't enough to bring down the buildings at least not within the actual time frame of the downing of the buildings. Don't forget, we cannot discuss the Twin Towers without thinking about what caused Building Seven to come down in a like manner.
...out of more than 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 reached temperatures in excess of 250ÂºC (450ÂºF) during the fires. (Gaffney)
This is important, because the NIST could identify steel parts by serial numbers and such temperatures could not have sufficiently weakened the steel for collapse. Also, the actual steel often exceeded the building specifications by some twenty percent in strength rating.
The fires were dying down. They had moved away from the area of impact to where fire insulation would have remain after impact. The jet fuel was all burned up within some ten minutes. The other combustibles on the floors were much less than in a typical building. The smoke was black (cool). The fires were in pockets and not raging. The exterior walls were designed to act as a screen acts when poked through. The steel frame was acting as a heat wick, allowing the heat to be conducted away from the fires. No steel-frame buildings ever collapsed in a fire before or since. The forty-seven story Building Seven came down at near free-fall speed from the bottom up without having been hit by any plane and with only a few small fires inside and with a molten pool underneath.
Add to all of this the war games on 9-11, the wire transfers to Atta, the gaming on 7-7 in London, the neocon Project for the New American Century Pearl Harbor statement, the Defense Guidance written by Wolfowitz, the other false-flag operations throughout history, the lies about the Persian Gulf War by George H. W. Bush, the Kennedy and other CIA/Mob, et al., assassinations, the Federal Reserve conspiracy, MK-ULTRA and the other CIA/Pentagon evil programs, Project Monarch, the Franklin Pedophile cover-up, The Finders cover-up, all the CIA/Pentagon wars around the world, the lies to start the Iraq War, and on and on and on, and you have conspiracy on a massive scale by racketeers running the planet.
This is why The Bible says that Satan rules the earth. This is why Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. The outcome is inevitable.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)