A Question of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

[eots]

It is also interesting how you take the word of a youtube video over acutal engineering experts who have no problem with the official story of 9/11:

Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue
https://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/people/ayhan-irfanoglu


Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo.
JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse


Eduardo Kausel: MIT Engineering professor
The Towers Lost and Beyond

These are engineering professors at the top engineering schools in the world according to this site: http://skorcareer.com.my/blog/10-wo...ed for the towers...it is the laws of physics

 

[DiveCon]

It is also interesting how you take the word of a youtube video over acutal engineering experts who have no problem with the official story of 9/11:

Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue
https://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/people/ayhan-irfanoglu


Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo.
JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse


Eduardo Kausel: MIT Engineering professor
The Towers Lost and Beyond

These are engineering professors at the top engineering schools in the world according to this site: http://skorcareer.com.my/blog/10-wo...f physics[/QUOTE] sorry UL says that is a lie

 

[Big_D]

evidence is suppressed first responder and eye wittiness testimony ignored the methods used for the demolition techniques are not determined and perhaps unconventional ..ewe dint know because there is a cover up

As the expert said, the evidence would have been there. The camera videotaping the debris would have shown this. Photographs and videos were taken before anyone was there cleaning it up and therefore we would have evidence of this. Sorting through all this debris and finding all the explosives, wires, and everything else involved before any video was taken would be impossible. They would have actually needed to hunt and find everything that would have used and some of it would of course be hidden under the debris. There is no way around it.

....how about you tell me how Kevin Ryan of underwriters is wrong

that is simply the formate it is Kevin Ryan of underwriters the man that that certified the steel used for the towers...it is the laws of physics

I will admit that I cannot do that because I am no expert. However, as I have shown if he is right then someone else at underwriters is wrong. It is one person's word against another. This also means that if Ryan is right then the two papers that passed the engineering division of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

As I have said to you in the past, that means that all these engineering experts read and passed those two articles:
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
ASCE-EMD - EXCOM
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES

If Ryan is right then all these engineering experts are wrong. I think they would know more about the law of physics.

 

[eots]

evidence is suppressed first responder and eye wittiness testimony ignored the methods used for the demolition techniques are not determined and perhaps unconventional ..ewe dint know because there is a cover up

As the expert said, the evidence would have been there. The camera videotaping the debris would have shown this. Photographs and videos were taken before anyone was there cleaning it up and therefore we would have evidence of this. Sorting through all this debris and finding all the explosives, wires, and everything else involved before any video was taken would be impossible. They would have actually needed to hunt and find everything that would have used and some of it would of course be hidden under the debris. There is no way around it.

bullshit

....how about you tell me how Kevin Ryan of underwriters is wrong

that is simply the formate it is Kevin Ryan of underwriters the man that that certified the steel used for the towers...it is the laws of physics

I will admit that I cannot do that because I am no expert. However, as I have shown if he is right then someone else at underwriters is wrong. It is one person's word against another. This also means that if Ryan is right then the two papers that passed the engineering division of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

the facrs of steel and tempature our not opinions..they are hard facts




As I have said to you in the past, that means that all these engineering experts read and passed those two articles:
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
ASCE-EMD - EXCOM
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES

If Ryan is right then all these engineering experts are wrong. I think they would know more about the law of physics.

his job was to certify and test steel for high rise construction...the facts are the facts

 

[eots]

evidence is suppressed first responder and eye wittiness testimony ignored the methods used for the demolition techniques are not determined and perhaps unconventional ..we dont know because there is a cover up

that is simply the formate it is Kevin Ryan of underwriters the man that that certified the steel used for the towers...it is the laws of physics

I will admit that I cannot do that because I am no expert. However, as I have shown if he is right then someone else at underwriters is wrong. It is one person's word against another. This also means that if Ryan is right then the two papers that passed the engineering division of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

the facrs of steel and tempature our not opinions..they are hard facts

As I have said to you in the past, that means that all these engineering experts read and passed those two articles:
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
ASCE-EMD - EXCOM
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES

If Ryan is right then all these engineering experts are wrong. I think they would know more about the law of physics

his job was to certify and test steel for high rise construction...the facts are the facts

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Quoting yourself does not make it any less ignorant then the first time you posted it.

 

[eots]

you are a expert on ignorence..all those years of practice have made you proficient at it

 

[Mr. Jones]

For the third time in this thread you were asked to find explosives in that photo and you ignored it all three times. Again, as the demolition expert said, you would have had plenty of it at the scenes. You cannot combat this so you simply jump to something else.

Did someone here claim to be able to identify thermite, or wires/cables in that pile of wreckage? From a photo?
Perhaps if proper procedure was followed and a proper investigation done, something would have been found but we'll never know now.
But what if this process was used that would have probably eliminated the need for conventional cables and CD equipment?
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
"But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses."
Wow, nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, this is interesting, I never heard of this before.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
One thing that can't be disputed is the thermal imaging of the rubble that showed intense heat for months after the collapse. I haven't seen an explanation for that. Some experts dismiss the intense fire theory
for the collapses because of the low burn temp of jet fuel, and say the only thing that could sustain such high temperatures in the rubble for so long is thermite/thermate, which if true would point to
a CD of the buildings, perhaps using the above mentioned technology, instead of conventional methods of wiring a building?

 

[Big_D]

First, I see that decided not insult my statement about the workers actually having to find the explosives, instead of actually refuting it. You made the statement that the first workers at the WTC buildings actually removed all evidence of the demolition. I responded by stating that in order to do that they would actually have to move the debris out of the way and find every piece demolition that fell before any video was taken. As the demolition expert said there would have been plenty of this and the first video/photographs of the debris would have shown it, but nothing of the such has surfaced. Of course you couldn't refute it so you just insulted it instead.

the facrs of steel and tempature our not opinions..they are hard facts

What hard facts are you referring to? Per all those experts they believe that the fact was the towers collapsed because of the planes not because of explosives. I had probably 80+ of the top engineers in the world and they all disagree with you.

his job was to certify and test steel for high rise construction...the facts are the facts

Robert Behinig, associate manager of Underwriters Laboratories Fire Protection Division who certified the WTC’s steel, disagrees with him.

 

[Big_D]

For the third time in this thread you were asked to find explosives in that photo and you ignored it all three times. Again, as the demolition expert said, you would have had plenty of it at the scenes. You cannot combat this so you simply jump to something else.

Did someone here claim to be able to identify thermite, or wires/cables in that pile of wreckage? From a photo? [/QUOTE]

No, but it would have been conspicuous from the first photos at the scene. Because there is not footage of this, that mean no demolition was there.

Perhaps if proper procedure was followed and a proper investigation done, something would have been found but we'll never know now. But what if this process was used that would have probably eliminated the need for conventional cables and CD equipment?

How do you explain what happened to all the demolition equipment that would have been used? Workers couldn't have gone onto the debris and removed it without being videotaped. Camera were recording at the time of the fall.

It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
"But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses."
Wow, nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, this is interesting, I never heard of this before.

Yet, nobody found any evidence of this at the WTC buidlings. Mark Loizeaux, the demolition expert, actually said that walls would have had to be torn down and the place would obviously need to be filled with wiring. Of the 30 million people who visited the WTC yearly or the 55,000 workers nobody has evidence of any demolition or wiring inside the building. Surely, someone would have found something. As I said, Robert Behinig, associate manager of Underwriters Laboratories Fire Protection Division who certified the WTC’s steel, disagrees with him: http://www.ul.com/regulators/WTC.pdf As I have also shown, so does all those engineering experts who approved those two papers from post number 423.

One thing that can't be disputed is the thermal imaging of the rubble that showed intense heat for months after the collapse. I haven't seen an explanation for that. Some experts dismiss the intense fire theory
for the collapses because of the low burn temp of jet fuel, and say the only thing that could sustain such high temperatures in the rubble for so long is thermite/thermate, which if true would point to
a CD of the buildings, perhaps using the above mentioned technology, instead of conventional methods of wiring a building?

Thermal energy is created by increased temperatures, it doesn't mean that demolition was used. As per the article below they explain why it occurred.

"the thermal energy generated by the collapse of the two structures..."
NPS-GIS World Trade Center GIS

 

[eots]

Robert Behinig, associate manager of Underwriters Laboratories Fire Protection Division who certified the WTC’s steel, disagrees with him.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if Kevin Ryan being fired after disputing the nist had anything to do with that

 

[eots]

9/11 whistleblower fired 2004-11-17 23:30

by Flemming Funch

Until two days ago Kevin Ryan was head of the Environmental Health Laboratory Div. of Underwriter's Laboratory. That is the lab that originally had certified the steel that the World Trade Center was built with. He had recently written a memo to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology questioning that the steel had failed in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses due to the burning jet fuel. I'll include his memo below. He simply points out that the information doesn't match what his lab knew about the steel, and that the official reports are based on ideas that have nothing to do with the known laws of physics. I.e. the possible temperatures of burning fuel and the temperatures at which steel might possibly be softened. That has been mentioned before, of course, but experts in the right positions have stayed strangely quiet. So I guess this guy needed to be shut up too. Doesn't sound like he'll be very quiet, though.

Various comments and info here and an article here



[ame]http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QGuwulT7spQ&feature=PlayList&p=FA8D7A017C97B1CC&index=17[/ame]
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected]

 

[DiveCon]

I wonder if Kevin Ryan being fired after disputing the nist had anything to do with that

did you see the results of his law suit?





comedy gold

 

[Big_D]

Robert Behinig, associate manager of Underwriters Laboratories Fire Protection Division who certified the WTC’s steel, disagrees with him.

Kevin Ryan had nothing to do with it. When I searched the web to see if Ryan had been fired at all, I wasn't able to locate any credible site with this info. But according to the conspiracy websites, Ryan was fired in 2004. Robert Behinig's article (http://www.ul.com/regulators/WTC.pdf) came out in 2002. Kevin Ryan termination, if it even is true, had nothing to do with it as it would have happened after Behinig's article was printed.

 

[eots]

you people are idiotic your denial if the information isot disseminated through the controlled media ..it does not exist to you ...thats how easy you make it...any alternative source that does have the information is defined as a troofer site...kevin Ryan is not some elusive shadowy figure..his credibility and story are well known to those that have followed the 911 sinvestigation..just deal with the facts...agree or disagree but stop the lame ass denial..that these people exist or facts like he was fired for his stand

 

[DiveCon]

you people are idiotic your denial if the information isot disseminated through the controlled media ..it does not exist to you ...thats how easy you make it...any alternative source that does have the information is defined as a troofer site...kevin Ryan is not some elusive shadowy figure..his credibility and story are well known to those that have followed the 911 sinvestigation..just deal with the facts...agree or disagree but stop the lame ass denial..that these people exist or facts like he was fired for his stand

no, its you thats idiotic, you would believe anything on the internet
if its not from a legit source, it is questionable
Kevin Ryan was FIRED because he was a moron

 

[Godboy]

eots
Registered User
Member #3851

He simply points out that the information doesn't match what his lab knew about the steel, and that the official reports are based on ideas that have nothing to do with the known laws of physics. I.e. the possible temperatures of burning fuel and the temperatures at which steel might possibly be softened.

If this were true, pretty much every scientist on earth would agree with him, but they dont, because theres absolutely NO truth to that statement at all. Thats the beauty of science, its irrefutable, unless your a nut job.

 

[eots]

eots
Registered User
Member #3851

He simply points out that the information doesn't match what his lab knew about the steel, and that the official reports are based on ideas that have nothing to do with the known laws of physics. I.e. the possible temperatures of burning fuel and the temperatures at which steel might possibly be softened.

If this were true, pretty much every scientist on earth would agree with him, but they dont, because theres absolutely NO truth to that statement at all. Thats the beauty of science, its irrefutable, unless your a nut job.

here comes goatboy talking out his ass...again

 

[eots]

Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story



RUSS WITTENBERG: (Stated On September 16, 2007)
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."




DATELINE 9/28/2007 Respected Architect Richard Gage:

[people are dubbing this new evidence 'Pandora's Box' saying this is going to blow the lid off the official story] Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction, featuring San Francisco architect, Richard Gage, AIA, founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth [ae911Truth.org] at the Media Education Foundation community room, located at the back of the building where Woodstar Cafe is located, 60 Masonic Street, Northampton, MA, beginning at
7:00 pm on October 4, 2007.
Richard Gage - Web Site http:/ae911truth.org


Info Item

DATELINE 9/24/2007

 

[Godboy]

I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Yet it still happened. How do you explain the planes we all saw crash into the twin towers, if its impossible for them to crash, as your quote claims?