The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan

Journal of 9/11 Studies | Published on 07-02-08

MUST READ DOCUMENT!

(excerpt)

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had never heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

DOWNLOAD: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites (Kevin Ryan)

Two New Papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Two New Papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

by Kevin Ryan, Journal of 911 Studiesjournalof911studies.jpg

Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is an article by Frank Legge, called “9/11 and Probability Theory”. Here is an excerpt:

“If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events, like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andProbabilityTheory17Legge.pdf

The second paper is a letter from Kevin Fenton, entitled “WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered”:

“It is interesting to compare the collapse initiation floor in WTC1 to the central impact floors in terms of three of the main aspects thought to have influenced the collapse: impact damage, jet fuel spilled, and debris available to remove fire insulation.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

Major 9-11 Treatise Published in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

bentham-banner.jpgThe paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long.

Download the .pdf file here.

*******************************************************************************************************

[Read more…]

NIST Response to Request for Correction – 092707

DOWNLOAD: NIST Response to Request for Correction, 09/27/07

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC Collapses

The British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the Twin Towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]

September 27, 2007: NIST Says It Cannot Explain the Total Collapse of the World Trade Center

In a reply to criticisms of its World Trade Center investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admits that it is unable to fully explain the total collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. NIST’s letter is a response to a “request for correction” letter sent to it five months earlier by Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, who both lost family members on 9/11, along with scientists Kevin Ryan and Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. This letter made several assertions about NIST’s final reports of its WTC investigation, and suggested they had violated the Data Quality Act and NIST’s information quality standards. NIST’s reply denies the requests for corrections. However, it also mentions, “[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” of the World Trade Center. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/27/2007 ] In its final report on the Twin Towers collapses, released in October 2005, NIST admitted that its investigation did “not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable” (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 82 ]

November 20, 2008: NIST Releases Final Report on WTC 7 Collapse, Repeats Conclusions of Earlier Draft Report

NIST’s ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.’ [Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology.]The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) releases the final report of its three-year investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, the 47-story skyscraper which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). This is the completed version of the report, and comes three months after a draft version was released for public comment (see August 21, 2008). NIST states that the new report “is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report.” NIST conducted an additional computer analysis in response to comments from the building community, and made several minor amendments to the report. But, it says, “the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.” With the release of this report, NIST has completed its six-year investigation of the World Trade Center collapses, which it commenced in August 2002 (see August 21, 2002). The final report of its investigation of the Twin Towers’ collapses was published in October 2005 (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 11/20/2008; Occupational Health and Safety, 11/25/2008]

Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like

We Don’t Need Any More Warnings

We Don’t Need Any More Warnings
by Kevin Ryan

the-warning.JPGWhile busy with an event on September 10th of this year, I heard about some goings-on that resulted in bad publicity for the 9/11 Truth movement. Of course it is no longer surprising to many of us, who have been involved in fighting for the truth for years, that there would be some kind of hullabaloo just before the anniversary. This year the uproar included something called the “Kennebunkport Warning”, and a problem with this document as pointed out by some of the alleged signatories.

This warning document itself did not present any newsworthy information as far as I can see, other than the idea that some leaders of the Peace movement may have signed it. In fact, if it weren’t for these few signatures from prominent leaders of the Peace movement the warning would have been unremarkable, actually, as the message is fairly standard fair within the 9/11 Truth crowd, and is what many of us would be expected to say.

But when those prominent Peace movement leaders put out a statement suggesting that their signatures were either obtained under false pretenses, and/or they were less than fully aware of the entire message they had signed on to, the document gained attention. And as could have been predicted, that attention quickly turned into a divisive mess.

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it’s another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

(ppt) Confronting the Deception: 9/11, NIST and the Road to Global Collapse by Kevin Ryan

Confronting the Deception: 9/11, NIST and the Road to Global Collapse
by Kevin Ryan

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Come to Colorado
Boulder and Denver, October 28th and 29th, 2006
Sponsored by Colorado 9-11 Visibility

colorado.ppt

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007

squibs.jpgSince September 11th, 2001, there have been two competing hypotheses to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. The first hypothesis, a fire-induced collapse of all three buildings, has undergone numerous variations over the years, as government scientists have worked to keep it alive while ignoring the second hypothesis.[1] That second hypothesis is the controlled demolition of all three buildings.

There is a great deal of compelling evidence for the demolition hypothesis, including the following physical facts about the destruction of each building.

• Sudden onset of failure
• Near free-fall speed of “collapse”
• Symmetrical “collapse”
• Many eyewitness testimonies to explosions and flashes of light
• Small rubble piles (WTC 7 fell into its own footprint)
• Molten metal in the rubble piles and pouring from WTC 2
• Dust clouds resembling pyroclastic flows from volcanoes
• Sulfidation and intergranular melting of the steel

[Read more…]

Kevin Ryan Publishes an Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova

purdue-university-black-and-gold.jpgDear President Córdova,

Congratulations on your recent appointment at Purdue University. As a long time citizen of the state of Indiana, I welcome you to what I know to be an outstanding institution of higher learning. At the same time, I hope to help you see an immediate opportunity to make a great positive difference in the lives of the people of our state and, in fact, a great difference in the lives of people everywhere. Through your appointment you have been given this opportunity to speak out and denounce what can be called, at best, criminally negligent science on the part of a small segment of the Purdue faculty.

Last month, a few Purdue professors, along with some students, presented a short animation ostensibly related to the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC). Surprisingly the University then announced this animation in a news release, as if it represented a scientifically accurate simulation of the impact of a Boeing 767 into the WTC’s north tower.[1] Unfortunately, this short video clip is far from a scientifically-based production, as it actually contradicts several of the government’s own, much more intensive studies, and shamefully fails to capture some of the most basic aspects of the related events. To make things worse, Purdue University paradoxically implies that this brief animation provides support for the overworked fire-induced collapse hypothesis. By simultaneously contradicting and voicing support for the official story, Purdue has helped to promote the Bush Administration’s fraudulent 9/11 Wars, and instantly earned a notorious place in modern history.

[Read more…]

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”
by Kevin Ryan
March 8, 2007

diagBar04When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable of, or more likely to, tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

[Read more…]

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd
by Arabesque


In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.[1]

Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true.I am writing this list in order to help remedy this situation.All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up.Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are.I have provided the footnotes to prove it.

I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:

#10.Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.[2]

#9.This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3]

#8.They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.[4]

#7.They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5]

#6.Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6]

#5.Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.[7]

#4.They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.[8]

#3.Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]

#2.Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theorythey do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began![10]

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1.Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”![11]

This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.

Original article here.

[Read more…]

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.