9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[shaman_]

The evidence is in the other direction as I have pointed out many times. But feel free to try to prove that Kevin Ryan did either of the above.

What are you talking about? We have already discussed that Kevin Ryan said the steel was subjected to temperatures no hotter than 500C. Didn’t you just agree with me about this?

Perhaps they were embarassed; but my guess is that they were embarassed that one of their employees would dare to actually disagree with the findings of the not yet published NIST report. Kevin Ryan made it very clear how dangerous it was to challenge the official line on this:
"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told [NIST]'s Gayle."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

What risk? Every second conspiracy theorist with an internet connection has challenged the official line. There are books, websites and dvds that challenge it and what is happening to them? Nothing. You are paranoid and delusional.

He did no such thing:
An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Those words were in quotes because that was the reason given by UL. That was why he was fired.

 

[shaman_]

Sigh. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the office fires were capable of going beyond 500C.

You have been shown examples that invalidate that claim. From Mackey's very helpful document -

“a reference office fire test [43] conducted in 24, the United Kingdom, as part of the Cardington experiments in 1998, demonstrated that “cellulosic,” or largely wood- and paper-based fires, can easily send atmospheric temperatures 10 cm below roof decking above 1000 oC and sustain this temperature for several minutes, and remain over 800 oC for over half an hour.
“


The jet fuel alone can burn hotter than 500C.

However-, it would be quite easy for thermate to reach temperatures well above 500C.

To cut, explode or just burn? What are you proposing? Do you even know?

We talking about WTC 7? In any case, you may want to look at this long report of all the mistakes NIST made in its most recent WTC 7 report:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883 .

No we are not talking about WTC7. Don’t change the subject every time you can’t respond.

I have also pointed out that steel structures is not the same thing as steel framed buildings. No steel framed building has even completely collapsed before or after 9/11.

You have been shown a bridge which collapsed from a gasoline tanker crash, a toilet paper factory collapsed from a fire I can only assume was mainly toilet paper (lol), here is a toy factory where the steel collapsed from fire
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/kadertoyfactoryfire:structuralsteelquick

in fact there are several relevant examples on this page.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst

As the list keeps growing how are you going to keep pretending that they don’t matter?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Because the evidence is essentially non existent for all but one of the 'witnesses'. Apparently, perhaps the largest 'official story' list of supposed plane-clipping light pole sightings can be found on Arabesque's site here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
CIT's Craig Ranke made quick work of all but 1 of the claims in the following link posted a little over a year ago:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9680

In the one case where he finds that the witness does, in fact, truly state that she saw a light pole being clipped by a plane. That witness is Wanda Ramey. She had stated this:
“I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”

Craig Ranke had this to say about her statement:
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one."

I spent a few minutes going through their list and I want those minutes back. Having seen the brilliant analysis I can see how they managed to say that 100+ accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon are actually only 30. It’s amazing just how much testimony they ignore because it doesn’t fit their beliefs.

I would argue that they're simply being skeptical when people don't make it clear that they actually saw the light poles being hit.

They discard many people who they claim weren’t in a position to see the plane hitting poles even though they describe seeing a plane hitting poles. Perhaps they were clearer on the massive plane flying low and hitting poles than they were on their position at the time.

The fact that the plane hit some light poles was in the news; they could have simply stated what had they had already heard. The witnesses didn't hear where they -were- in the news, however, so -that- part they couldn't have gotten from a report.

They assume that accounts that don’t say the words “I saw the plane hitting the pole” as meaning that they didn’t see it. If you read what they were quoted they were describing what they saw at the time. For example -

“It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

'Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit.'

and

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

'Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles.'

..this is a gem

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

'I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told.'

lol what?

You must admit that it's possible that all the people above did not actually see the light poles being hit. Nevertheless, I certainly believe these cases warrant further investigation. Apparently, so does CIT; check out this video of theirs, regarding the color of the jet that flew towards the pentagon from the north side (as opposed to the official south side flight path):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9547

This is a good example of their bias, hilariously they point out the Mike Walter didn’t see it hitting a pole so they think they have a case... but ignore his very clear testimony about the plane hitting the pentagon.

Let's take a look at Mike Walter's testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs&feature=related

Let's see what another witness of the plane has to say about his testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qouaq9GFtOk&NR=1

thepentacon.com cites numerous witnesses who cite that the plane was coming in from the -north- side, not the south side of the citgo gas station. If what they say is true, it is physically impossible for the plane to have crashed into the pentagon, because the damage doesn't corroborate that the pentagon was 'hit' from that side. It's been the contention of many that the damage doesn't corroborate that the pentagon was hit from -any- side, but if it were to be hit from any side, it would have to be hit from the side that the official story dictates. And yet, there are now atleast 13 witnesses who are clear that it came in from the north side of the citgo gas station. And then, ofcourse, there's the one witness who reported a plane that had flown -over- the pentagon, seconds after the supposed collision.

I noticed that these names are not even mentioned on their list - Elaine McCusker , D. S. Khavkin

CIT's Craig Ranke was debunking Arabesque's lists. Arabesque only mentions Elain McCusker and D.S. Khavkin in the "Witnesses described the type of plane" list.

They discard the accounts that don’t have the persons name

Surely you realize that accounts who can't be pinned to any particular individual would be quite easy to fake? The supposed person might not even exist.

and then triumphantly at the end he declares that there is only person who saw the plane hit any poles!

Even in the one case, they have already made it clear that her testimony is questionable and that they haven't been able to contact her.

So they conclude a plane didn’t hit the pentagon …..Meanwhile ignoring the accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon!

They did no such thing. I'll address the witnesses that allegedly witnessed the plane crash into the pentagon in another post.

 

[fedr808]

I doubt that Hitler was angry about the attack on Pearl Harbor because they were allies and would have obviously coordinated their efforts. The thinking was probably that the U.S was going to get involved sooner or later anyway so may as well pull off a preemptive strike.

If they had even the slightest reason to think the U.S was going to sit back and watch the events in Europe and do nothing then why even bring them into it? I would say they did it to destroy a good part of the air support the U.S had to offer.

I think that the notion the attack was known is just wishful thinking. As far as people going to recruiting stations after the attack that probably is false also because there was a draft.

Lee Harvey Oswald

Just look at his bio and it is impossible to fathom anyone seriously using him to pull off a job like that. Certainly not the U.S government, which is almost comical to believe that anyway and the Mafia would not have done it to begin with. It would almost be a guarantee that when he was caught he would have been giving people up left and right. Communist help is far fetched also because killing JFK would not have helped or mattered much to them either.

Same for 911, you want to play detective and write books then go ahead because there will always be a segment of the population that just cannot accept the truth. It's like replacing a whole engine for a bad distributor cap.

Look, the reason why I said Hitler was pissed is because now the Japanese brought America into the war. And Hitler knew this but the Japanese, America had the biggest by a huge margin, auto industry in the world. It is not too big a stretch to change those auto factory's into tank, gun, and ammunition factories and that's what happened. America simply out produced everything. 1 American war unit of any kind, other than battleship or aircraft, could not compete against 1 German, German units were tons better, we could just roll out so many tanks and soldiers it overwhelmed them. There is only one piece of eevidence that a japanese strike may have been remotely known. The two american pacific aircraft carriers left pearl harbor. Not to escape, but to head towards midway island. It was thought that if the Japanes attacked it would be at midway.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Rules of Physics

So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building after SEVEN YEARS. This simple physics problem should have been settled in less than a year but all of the EXPERTS should have admitted that information was necessary.

I'm pretty sure that information is already out there?

ROFLMAO

Try finding it!

The NCSTAR1 report doesn't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. You can find numbers on the internet ranging from 90,000 tons to 425,000 cubic yards of concrete for both buildings. That would be 280,000 tons per building. There is controversy about how much concrete was in the core and I have never seen anyone specify how much was in the foundation.

Why don't you try finding the tons of steel on each level just within the impact zones?

The most detailed info I have seen is created by Gregory Urich but he admits it is wrong because the mass distribution for the perimeter columns is interpolated. The NIST admits there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels but they don't tell us the number and weight of each type. We only know the weight of the heaviest, 22 tons, because it is in an engineering article from 1970.
_______________________

Suppose we short circuit all this talk about fire and temperatures.

Imagine we had the north tower in its original condition.

Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do.

Now to analyze what would happen after such a collapse impact we would at least need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building. How can conservation of momentum be computed without that? So why don't we have a table with such simple information after SEVEN YEARS? Why shouldn't people on both sides of the issue expect the OFFICIAL "WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS" to provide such simple information? Shouldn't our engineering schools all have the computing power to do such a simulation? It should be less computing intensive than that pretty graphic simulation that Purdue created.

I emailed Purdue about the steel and concrete by the way. Chris Hoffman responded and said contact Prof. Sozen. I had emailed him also but have never gotten a response. Since the building would move as a result of the impact the simulation cannot be accurate without that movement. But that movement would be affected by distribution of mass so we are back to the issue I keep bringing up.

A skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down to support its own weight and resist the wind. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes may give the correct impression for distribution of volume but it has to be way off for distribution of mass.

So why aren't people who give the impression they are intelligent enough to know physics demanding the data necessary to do this simple Newtonian physics?

It is totally ridiculous that this has dragged on for SEVEN YEARS and such obvious information isn't available and yet the NIST admits in two places that the information is necessary for the analysis.

psik

 

[fedr808]

ROFLMAO

Try finding it!

The NCSTAR1 report doesn't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. You can find numbers on the internet ranging from 90,000 tons to 425,000 cubic yards of concrete for both buildings. That would be 280,000 tons per building. There is controversy about how much concrete was in the core and I have never seen anyone specify how much was in the foundation.

Why don't you try finding the tons of steel on each level just within the impact zones?

The most detailed info I have seen is created by Gregory Urich be he admits it is wrong because the mass distribution for the perimeter columns is interpolated. The NIST admits there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels but they don't tell us the number and weight of each type. We only know the weight of the heavyist, 22 tons, because it is in an engineering article from 1970.


Suppose we short circuit all this talk about fire and temperatures.

Imagine we had the north tower in its original condition.
_______________________

Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do.

Now to analyze what would happen after such a collapse impact we would at least need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building. How can conservation of momentum be computed without that? So why don't we have a table with such simple information after SEVEN YEARS? Why shouldn't people on both sides of the issue expect the OFFICIAL "WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS" to provide such simple information? Shouldn't our engineering schools all have the computing power to do such a simulation? It should be less computing intensive than that pretty graphic simulation that Purdue created.

I emailed Purdue about the steel and concrete by the way. Chris Hoffman responded and said contact Prof. Sozen. I had emailed him also but have never gotten a response. Since the building would move as a result of the impact the simulation cannot be accurate without that movement. But that movement would be affected by distribution of mass so we are back to the issue I keep bringing up.

A skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down to support its own weight and resist the wind. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes may give the correct impression for distribution of volume but it has to be way off for distribution of mass.

So why aren't people who give the impression they are intelligent enough to know physics demanding the data necessary to do this simple Newtonian physics?

It is totally ridiculous that this has dragged on for SEVEN YEARS and such obvious information isn't available and yet the NIST admits in two places that the information is necessary for the analysis.

psik

You know what everyone this guy is totally right. A plane and fire cannot remove 5 stories instantaniously. Nor could dynamite, thermite, thermate, or a nuclear bomb. You would need a gravitational singularity (the thing in the center of a black hole, defined as a place of infinite mass, and no volume) to instantly remove 5 stories leaving no support whatsoever.
Now considering that the closest star is liked tens of thousands of miles away, and not going to go black hole for the next 8 billion years, i think we can all assume that there is no black hole in the middle of the world trade center.

Also you guys, as hot as thermite and thermate is, it takes a while to burn through steel and concrete. Releasing a pool of sparks/molten metal. And it has no explosive properties whatsoever. Also thermate is incredibly similar to thermite. Also to get enough thermite/thermate to melt through the bars would be enormous and would be impossible to put that much into the structure with out anyone knowing. Also last i checked no one painted a bulls eye on the world trade center. To make it look remotely plausible the plane would have to hit exactly on target. Which quite frankly going 400 miles per hour, by the time a pilot could even get close enough to even attempt to count how many levels there are and exactly where they should hit, they would have around 1/3 to 1/6 of a second to change the angle of the plane to hit it. Now these calculations are based around the idea that the pilot can count the levels from 100-200 feet away. Which you still ned some good eyesight for.

And considering the fact that they want to provide the greatest destruction they will probably be hitting full throttle putting them more towards 600 mph which means they have 1/8 to 1/4 of a second to change the planes altitude. Which you do not have to be a college graduate to see just how impossible that is.

So someone tell me if they did, but i do not remember there being a giant bulls eye painted on the world trade center.


You guys jet fuel does not burn at 500 degrees. I do not know how the heck you guys got this idea but ive been trying to clear it up but no one seems to have even looked at it. Jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees in a jet engine and that's a tiny amount, imagine what the enormous amount of jet fuel in a plane, what kind of temperature it would reach. Yah it's pretty darn high.

 

[shaman_]

I would argue that they're simply being skeptical when people don't make it clear that they actually saw the light poles being hit.

The fact that the plane hit some light poles was in the news; they could have simply stated what had they had already heard. The witnesses didn't hear where they -were- in the news, however, so -that- part they couldn't have gotten from a report.

I doubt the plane hitting poles was mentioned in mnay, if any, of the news reports. But that doesn't matter, these people were at the scene and describing what they saw. The CIT guys don’t like it so they ignore it. It’s what conspiracy theorists seem to do.

You must admit that it's possible that all the people above did not actually see the light poles being hit. .

They are describing what they saw. Isn't that the point?

Do the CIT guys admit that it is possible that their witnesses weren't clear on the approach of the plane? Nope.

Nevertheless, I certainly believe these cases warrant further investigation. Apparently, so does CIT; check out this video of theirs, regarding the color of the jet that flew towards the pentagon from the north side (as opposed to the official south side flight path):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9547





Let's take a look at Mike Walter's testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs&feature=related

Let's see what another witness of the plane has to say about his testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qouaq9GFtOk&NR=1

thepentacon.com cites numerous witnesses who cite that the plane was coming in from the -north- side, not the south side of the citgo gas station.

No they don’t have many witnesses at all and even with the ones they cite the interpretation is questionable.

Here is a discussion of a few of them.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

If what they say is true, it is physically impossible for the plane to have crashed into the pentagon, because the damage doesn't corroborate that the pentagon was 'hit' from that side. It's been the contention of many that the damage doesn't corroborate that the pentagon was hit from -any- side, but if it were to be hit from any side, it would have to be hit from the side that the official story dictates. And yet, there are now atleast 13 witnesses who are clear that it came in from the north side of the citgo gas station.

Ha. Having seen how they work, I seriously doubt that. But even if they did have 13 it would still be vastly outweighed by the majority who were clear where the plane came from. That's the problem, they are trying to use witness testimony to support their story but to do so they need to ignore all the reports they don’t like and then cling on to the very few they believe(with their interpretation) supports their story. Their whole moronic case is completely contradictory in that they completely trust a few accounts, even though there are contradictory elements in those accounts, and discard all the ones that don’t suit them. Their case relies on witness testimony being 100% reliable… at the same time as throwing away so much testimony because witness testimony is not reliable. These guys are idiots.

If you took one hundred accounts at the WTC there would be differences in the reported approach as well.

And then, ofcourse, there's the one witness who reported a plane that had flown -over- the pentagon, seconds after the supposed collision.

That witness is wrong. The overwhelming picture from the collection of witness testimony is that a plane knocked over poles and hit the pentagon. Supposedly having a witness many years later that mentions seeing a plane flying over the pentagon doesn’t even begin to cast doubt on all the other testimonies.

CIT's Craig Ranke was debunking Arabesque's lists. Arabesque only mentions Elain McCusker and D.S. Khavkin in the "Witnesses described the type of plane" list.

So perhaps that’s not the best list to be working of. Pretty sure they mention the poles in the other lists.

Surely you realize that accounts who can't be pinned to any particular individual would be quite easy to fake? The supposed person might not even exist.




Even in the one case, they have already made it clear that her testimony is questionable and that they haven't been able to contact her.

They think the testimony of everyone who saw the plane hitting poles is questionable because of their preconceived beliefs. The numbers are there no matter how much they try to cast doubt on them.

They did no such thing.

Yes. They did.

We have been through this. They claim there were only 30 witnesses. Having seen their methods I’m not surprised they managed to discard most of the accounts they don’t like. So even if we pretend that there were only 30, that still outnumbers the one guy who supposedly says it flew over.

I'll address the witnesses that allegedly witnessed the plane crash into the pentagon in another post.

Having witnessed the bias they use there isn’t much point. The witness testimony is overwhelming and is corroborated by the physical evidence. This conspiracy is as stupid as missiles, ray guns and nukes.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Similar to Steven Jones being put on paid leave, Kevin Ryan was fired for making public claims which were incorrect or just plain stupid...

The evidence is in the other direction as I have pointed out many times. But feel free to try to prove that Kevin Ryan did either of the above.

What are you talking about? We have already discussed that Kevin Ryan said the steel was subjected to temperatures no hotter than 500C. Didn’t you just agree with me about this?

I've been doing some thinking and realized that there is indeed room for some confusion. I think it's high time we establish a few things. First, what Kevin Ryan said in his initial letter/email to Frank Gayle, director of the government team that had spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell when at the time of his letter. In his original letter, he first states the following, which is a clear defense of the steel's capacity to deal with fairly high temperatures:
***********************************
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
***********************************



He then goes into the findings that NIST had apparently made up until that point in time; that is, that NIST had not found any evidence of steel that had gone beyond about 250C:
*************************************
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
*************************************

Finally, he lowers the boom:
*************************************
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".
*************************************

He ends by thanking Frank Gayle as well as speaking on the dangers of speaking out against the prevailing viewpoints at the time:
*************************************
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
*************************************

From the above letter, one may indeed surmise that Kevin Ryan feels that the temperatures of the steel did not exceed 250C/500F. However, one must realize that Kevin was basing his views on the heat of the steel on NIST's own findings at the time. Since them, it seems that NIST has upgraded its views on how hot the metal got, and Kevin's placed the top possible temperatures even higher. Kevin Ryan frequents the same circle as Steven Jones and Steven Jones believes that FEMA's David Barnett's claim that their was evidence of evaporated steel was no mistake. That temperature is -way- beyond 250C (atleast 10 times more I believe).

However, while Kevin Ryan now believes that steel temperatures got much higher then 250C, he has never to my knowledge claimed that jet fuel initiated fires were the cause of it. Instead, like physicist Steven Jones, authors David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs and many others, they have come to the conclusion that explosives were involved in creating such temperatures.


Feel free to peruse Kevin Ryan's letter and many other articles of his at his site:
http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm

What risk?

The risk of being fired from one's post, as was Kevin, or essentially being booted from his position, as was Steven Jones (he retired, perhaps in order to continue to do research instead of being left in limbo). It appears that David Ray Griffin may have also retired for similiar reasons, although all I know is that he retired from his career as a full time academic in 2004. Jim Marrs has been an author for quite some time now, but when he wished to publish one of his books on 9/11, one of his publishers suddenly decided they didn't wish to publish it for reasons that I believe strain credulity.

Every second conspiracy theorist with an internet connection has challenged the official line. There are books, websites and dvds that challenge it and what is happening to them? Nothing.

Not all believers in alternate theories carry the same weight. It's one thing for a relative unknown to disagree with the official story by pecking away at a keyboard. It's quite another for recognized academics and authors to do so.

He was fired for “"expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." UL being Underwriters Laboratories.

He did no such thing:
An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Those words were in quotes because that was the reason given by UL.

Yes, I knew that, which is why I made it clear that Kevin Ryan denied that accusation.

Kevin has also made it clear how dishonest certain administrators within UL have been in regards to its role in testing the WTC steel:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873

Is seems that they felt they were caught between a rock and a hard place; on the one hand, NIST's report was faulty (therefore upsetting the powers behind the NIST report). On the other hand, the steel they certified was faulty (therefore, they were to blame).

Kevin Ryan put it in those terms precisely near the end of his letter, as I've mentioned before. To whit:
"If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."

What to do? Apparently they chose to deny they had anything to do with the certified steel. That way, they don't have to go against NIST's report and they also don't need to take the blame.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I would argue that they're simply being skeptical when people don't make it clear that they actually saw the light poles being hit.

The fact that the plane hit some light poles was in the news; they could have simply stated what had they had already heard. The witnesses didn't hear where they -were- in the news, however, so -that- part they couldn't have gotten from a report.

I doubt the plane hitting poles was mentioned in many, if any, of the news reports. But that doesn't matter, these people were at the scene and describing what they saw. The CIT guys don’t like it so they ignore it. It’s what conspiracy theorists seem to do...

Your entire post seems to be mainly dedicated to the CIT guys, which is understandable, since I rely on them heavily in regards to the witnesses. I could attempt to try to respond myself, but I think it'd be akin to reinventing the wheel; I think that they already -know- the answers whereas I'd have to go hunting for them. For this reason, I have asked them if one of them could respond to you via proxy (they respond in another forum and I relay the information, complete with link to their forum). We'll see how it goes.

 

[scott3x]

You know what everyone this guy is totally right. A plane and fire cannot remove 5 stories instantaniously. Nor could dynamite, thermite, thermate, or a nuclear bomb. You would need a gravitational singularity (the thing in the center of a black hole, defined as a place of infinite mass, and no volume) to instantly remove 5 stories leaving no support whatsoever. Now considering that the closest star is liked tens of thousands of miles away, and not going to go black hole for the next 8 billion years, i think we can all assume that there is no black hole in the middle of the world trade center.

fedr, I'm beginning to wonder if you like coming up with whacky theories for the fun of it. I think psychi was just trying to give you some leeway; as in, let's say that the fires -did- take out a few floors at demolition speeds without it actually being a demolition. It wouldn't account for what would happen to the rest. But instead, you have to take his terminology literally and go on about black holes

 

[MacGyver1968]

Scott, I was confused by psychi's post. I think he was trying to say if you just magically made 10 or so floors of the WTC just disappear, and allowed the top part of the building to free fall that distance, the bottom part of the tower would be strong enough to support it. Is that how you interpreted it?

Maybe psy can explain.

 

[fedr808]

wow why is it that i get ignored in this thread.

You know what everyone this guy is totally right. A plane and fire cannot remove 5 stories instantaniously. Nor could dynamite, thermite, thermate, or a nuclear bomb. You would need a gravitational singularity (the thing in the center of a black hole, defined as a place of infinite mass, and no volume) to instantly remove 5 stories leaving no support whatsoever.
Now considering that the closest star is liked tens of thousands of miles away, and not going to go black hole for the next 8 billion years, i think we can all assume that there is no black hole in the middle of the world trade center.

Also you guys, as hot as thermite and thermate is, it takes a while to burn through steel and concrete. Releasing a pool of sparks/molten metal. And it has no explosive properties whatsoever. Also thermate is incredibly similar to thermite. Also to get enough thermite/thermate to melt through the bars would be enormous and would be impossible to put that much into the structure with out anyone knowing. Also last i checked no one painted a bulls eye on the world trade center. To make it look remotely plausible the plane would have to hit exactly on target. Which quite frankly going 400 miles per hour, by the time a pilot could even get close enough to even attempt to count how many levels there are and exactly where they should hit, they would have around 1/3 to 1/6 of a second to change the angle of the plane to hit it. Now these calculations are based around the idea that the pilot can count the levels from 100-200 feet away. Which you still ned some good eyesight for.

And considering the fact that they want to provide the greatest destruction they will probably be hitting full throttle putting them more towards 600 mph which means they have 1/8 to 1/4 of a second to change the planes altitude. Which you do not have to be a college graduate to see just how impossible that is.

So someone tell me if they did, but i do not remember there being a giant bulls eye painted on the world trade center.


You guys jet fuel does not burn at 500 degrees. I do not know how the heck you guys got this idea but ive been trying to clear it up but no one seems to have even looked at it. Jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees in a jet engine and that's a tiny amount, imagine what the enormous amount of jet fuel in a plane, what kind of temperature it would reach. Yah it's pretty darn high.


This was in response to another guy who implied that the 5 stories magically disappeared.


Als you know what you guys Scotch is totally right. By the time the whole building fell, and it was safe for crews to get out there. Probably the hottest any of the steel rubble was is 250 degrees if there lucky. But what does that have to do with the steel being 3000 degrees when it broke?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Your entire post seems to be mainly dedicated to the CIT guys, which is understandable, since I rely on them heavily in regards to the witnesses. I could attempt to try to respond myself, but I think it'd be akin to reinventing the wheel; I think that they already -know- the answers whereas I'd have to go hunting for them. For this reason, I have asked them if one of them could respond to you via proxy (they respond in another forum and I relay the information, complete with link to their forum). We'll see how it goes.

Cool...can we ask questions by proxy to them via you?

I have a question that I never heard any TS opinion on. Did Islamic terrorists attack the WTC with a truck bomb back in '93? or was that insiders too?

 

[scott3x]

wow why is it that i get ignored in this thread.

Actually, I responded to your notion of black holes a bit ago ;-). But reading further along your post, it seems you know this.. which makes me wonder why you felt you were getting ignored .

 

[scott3x]

Scott, I was confused by psychi's post. I think he was trying to say if you just magically made 10 or so floors of the WTC just disappear, and allowed the top part of the building to free fall that distance, the bottom part of the tower would be strong enough to support it. Is that how you interpreted it?

Maybe psy can explain.

First of all, he didn't say 10 floors, he said 5. I gotta admit it though, fedr really takes exageration to a new level with his black hole ...

Here's what psy actually said:
"Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do."

I think it's safe to say that 'magically and instantaneously' need be no faster then what was actually observed. The actual points he's trying to make proceed after the above paragraph. He goes on with a good argument that more data is always good

Personally, I don't believe we actually need more data in order to determine that jet fuel initiated fires couldn't have brought down the buildings. I think the case has been made rather well by various well known individuals in the truth movement. However, it's one thing for someone within the truth movement to believe the arguments to be convincing and another thing entirely to say that the arguments are convincing to an official story believer.

Kind of like it's hard to persuade a republican state to vote for a democrat, but it -is- actually doable (you show 'em Obama ).

 

[scott3x]

Cool...can we ask questions by proxy to them via you?

You can ask me if I'll ask them, but I'm not sure I'll bug them with every little thing, laugh . I suggested that they respond to shaman's post regarding witnesses; they said that if shaman wanted to ask in their forum, he was welcome to do so, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that, laugh . Aldo Marquis, one of the co creators of CIT, actually tried to come here at one point in time, but he had a problem getting an account (an admin here thinks it was because he did or didn't have javascript on) and he seems to have lost interest to do so since then (they do have their own forum after all).

I have a question that I never heard any TS opinion on.

TS?

Did Islamic terrorists attack the WTC with a truck bomb back in '93? or was that insiders too?

Insider job as well.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Scott, I was confused by psychi's post. I think he was trying to say if you just magically made 10 or so floors of the WTC just disappear,

I am talking about doing a thought experiment which could be programmed as a computer simulation but this cannot happen in physical reality.

The question is, "Can a straight down gravitational collapse occur with the masses involved?"

But my point is that WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA after SEVEN YEARS. The people who designed the buildings had to figure that out and it had to be documented to construct the buildings. So why haven't EXPERTS been demanding it?

A black hole could not take out 5 levels and only 5 levels. It would remove a spherical region of material and cause the top portion to accelerate downward at greater then 1 G. This could only be done as a computer simulation. My intent in bringing it up is to bypass all of these steel temperature arguments because if that simulation can't collapse to the ground then a lot of explaining has to be done by a lot of people like why haven't our engineering schools pointed that out in SEVEN YEARS?

psik

 

[scott3x]

I doubt the plane hitting poles was mentioned in many, if any, of the news reports.

You doubt, but you're not sure.

But that doesn't matter, these people were at the scene and describing what they saw. The CIT guys don’t like it so they ignore it. It’s what conspiracy theorists seem to do.

People can describe things they believe to have happened as well as what they saw happen. This is why it's so important when someone says that they -saw- something, instead of just that something happened. There is one thing that I think we may both agree on, however: that it would be best to ask the sources of the statements as to whether they saw it or simply deduced or believed it to be true because of being told it happened, for instance.

Do the CIT guys admit that it is possible that their witnesses weren't clear on the approach of the plane? Nope.

Their witnesses clearly state that they -did- see the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo gas station, however. No ambivalence there.

thepentacon.com cites numerous witnesses who cite that the plane was coming in from the -north- side, not the south side of the citgo gas station.

No they don’t have many witnesses at all and even with the ones they cite the interpretation is questionable.

They now have 13 witnesses that saw the plane coming from the north side, which sounds fairly numerous to me. And why do you believe that the interpretations they give of their witnesses to be questionable? I'm guessing that you aren't happy that most of the witnesses deduce that the plane crashed into the pentagon even though the CIT team deduces that it didn't. The witnesses all seem to believe that the plane did in fact hit the pentagon at first; as to afterwards, I think the only one who may have been persuaded that there was a flyover after their interviews with CIT is, I believe, the one witness who clearly saw the plane fly over the pentagon. Is that the only interpretation of theirs you disagree with?

Here is a discussion of a few of them.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

I'll see if the CIT people will respond to that particular page...

 

[MacGyver1968]

TS=truth seeker

 

[scott3x]

I am talking about doing a thought experiment which could be programmed as a computer simulation but this cannot happen in physical reality.

The question is, "Can a straight down gravitational collapse occur with the masses involved?"

But my point is that WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA after SEVEN YEARS. The people who designed the buildings had to figure that out and it had to be documented to construct the buildings. So why haven't EXPERTS been demanding it?

A black hole could not take out 5 levels and only 5 levels. It would remove a spherical region of material and cause the top portion to accelerate downward at greater then 1 G. This could only be done as a computer simulation. My intent in bringing it up is to bypass all of these steel temperature arguments because if that simulation can't collapse to the ground then a lot of explaining has to be done by a lot of people like why haven't our engineering schools pointed that out in SEVEN YEARS?

psik

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence available makes it impossible for the WTC building collapses to be anything but demolitions. As to engineering schools and 'experts' in general- there are certainly some engineers who have protested the official story; they can be seen on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page. Their number stands at 525 and it continues to grow:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

As to why schools haven't done more research on all of this, I think it might be handy to remember that it's one thing to have the capability of figuring something out, but quite another to actually figure it out. I think that the movie "Zeitgeist" makes a convincing argument that most people are indoctrinated from an early age not to question certain authorities; once this belief system is set, it can be hard to change. For skeptics, there is also the threat of being being dismissed from their employ within society, as was the case with Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones. There have also been certain people in history who get the powers that be so upset that they are simply killed (John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King).

In essence, sometimes it takes more then expertise or even knowledge concerning something; sometimes only a hero will do.

Here, ironically, something very interesting happens. For while it is true that it takes a form of heroism at times to question religion, it is precisely this belief in a higher power or a greater good that can lead one to become a hero. Small wonder that people like David Ray Griffin, who was a professor of theology, and Steven Jones, who has stated that he believes that a higher power is helping him in his quest to discover the truth regarding 9/11, are the type of people who come towards the fore.

So where, one might ask, does this leave me? I admit that I too believe in God, although I adhere to no particular religion. But my definition of God is that God is everything. What everything is comprised of and how conscious and interconnected this everything is are still things that I'm not sure about. But I don't believe one has to believe in "God" per se; it's just a word after all.

What I do believe is necessary to be truly looked up to in the 9/11 movement is the very definition of modern heroism:
"...hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters (fictional or historical) that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice – that is, heroism – for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero