Thursday, 14 August 2008

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

by Kevin Ryan

When 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know, mechanics.
http://stj911.org/ryan/TruthInCredentials.html

FACT: The official explanations for the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings (including WTC 7) are all demonstrably false.

The US government's version of events has no substantial evidence to support its "fire induced collapse" model. On the contrary, the so called 911 "conspiracy theorists" (who include many independent scientists not working for the US government), actually have a wealth of scientific proofs showing that the World Trade Centre Towers were subject to explosive demolition (ie. part of the 911 attacks must have involved inside help).

It is time to re-examine ALL the evidence, and act to bring about a real criminal investigation into the attacks of September 11.


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 14th, 2008.]

2 comments:

Arthur Scheuerman said...

Kevin Ryan knew nothing about how floor assemblies are tested by his own company UL. He mentions that they tested the steel and it withstood 2000 deg for 3 and 4 hours. The UL tests floor and wall assemblies not the steel per se. The problem is that the long span floors used in the towers were never tested in their long span configuration of 60 feet. The standard furnace test can only handle 17 foot lengths of flooring. It was built for the more conservative codes used in the 30s 40s and 50s when 15 feet was the standard span used in high rises. These older buildings used shorter spans, more robust columns and beams, stronger connections and better fireproofing then the newer lightweight high-rises. The 17 foot furnace test currently used is meaningless for the longer spans. The main problem in the WTC flooring was their lightweight steel bar joists which due to the differential elongation (expansion) of the steel parts of the trusses and the concrete slabs. The different expansion rates deformed the steel parts, buckled the struts and disconnected the bond between the concrete slab and the joists. Greater expansion of the bottom chords releases the tension and allows the top chord to sag and act as a cable in suspension creating pull-in forces on the columns. Kevin Ryan knew nothing about how floor assemblies are tested by his own company UL. He mentions that they tested the steel and it withstood 2000 deg for 3 and 4 hours. The UL tests floor and wall assemblies not the steel per se. The problem is that the long span floors used in the towers were never tested in their long span configuration of 60 feet. The standard furnace test used by the UL can only handle 17 foot lengths of flooring. It was built for the more conservative codes used in the 30s 40s and 50s when 15 feet was the standard span used in high rises. These older buildings used shorter spans, more robust columns and beams, stronger connections and better fireproofing then the newer lightweight high-rises. The 17 foot furnace test currently used is meaningless for the longer spans. The main problem in the WTC flooring was their lightweight steel bar joists which due to the differential elongation (expansion) of the steel parts of the trusses and the concrete slabs. The different expansion rates deformed the steel parts, buckled the struts and disconnected the bond between the concrete slab and the joists. Greater expansion of the bottom chords releases the tension and allows the top chord to sag and act as a cable in suspension creating pull-in forces on the columns.

Richard Gages' pseudoscientific deluge of misinformation is typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent enough time and experimental effort examining the evidence. Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or building demolition area, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some radio talk shows’ babble as gospel. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeated on the internet without any research or fact checking.

The recent BBC video on the collapse of the WTC buildings utilized the top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene immediately and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of Building 5 from fire. These are all top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted for being in on the conspiracy.

Four years after the 9/11 attack and without inspecting any of the steel the Architect Richard Gage was listening to some equally uninformed Philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin and had an epiphany and from then on he knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How does he know all the columns failed at the same moment?

These lower columns were out of sight of the cameras. The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns had failed. Building 7 took over 13 seconds to collapse not 6.

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc.

Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these 'explosive' sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse.

The undamaged exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have had to have happened with controlled demolition.

When the undamaged south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. This bowing was witnessed and video taped by the Police Aviation Unit. In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when some floors apparently collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these 'explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe practically all the supposed 'explosive' sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and sagging floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive 'explosive' sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors after the top of the building began falling. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

SpookyPunkos said...

Arthur,

Kevin Ryan is entirely correct in his observations about the incestious nature of the official investigation. Amazingly your long winded reply did not not address ANY of the information he presented.

In fact your reply followed on the assumption that the official testing was legitimately handled- precisely the issue raised by Ryan in his essay !! The fact that practically all those conducting the post 911 fire experiments worked for various branches of the government and key individuals had contracts with the Department of Defence (and therefore could not be trusted) seemed to be lost on you. If the public, through independent observers, had complete access to the testing then this issue would not even exist.

You wrote: "Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or building demolition area, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some radio talk shows’ babble as gospel." Top experts in the field such as yourself ? Should we believe your top "expert" opinion when it is so obviously in error- or for that matter the opinion of others who have also made obvious "mistakes" with regard to the investigation ?

Arthur, it has already been proved that the supposed "top experts" have been pushing false and misleading information with regard to the evidence. In regards to yourself, you have made numerous erroneous claims in areas in which you have expertise. Numerous times you have written that the melted steel seen in the rubble (a sure sign of explosive incendiaries) can be explained away as melted battery lead or aircraft aluminium. However, lead or aluminium that has taken on an orange yellow glow cannot remain in a plastic state (as we see in the photo I commonly post on this blog). Therefore your "lead/aluminium" claim cannot possibly be correct. In fact, to offer such a claim is preposterous- especially when we consider all the other reports we have of melted steel. Assuming you are intelligent and knowledgeable (with regard to such basic scientific principles) I am left to conclude that, from your statements, you are either completely deluded or a liar.

With regard to the "experts" you wrote: "These are all top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions." As Ryan pointed out they are top experts- but linked to the DoD and other agencies. Maintaining their positions in government may indeed consist of getting "everything right" - but only in terms of defending the official story. Regardless, there is scientific proof, deliberately ignored and downplayed by these officially sanctioned individuals, that shows explosive demolition was responsible for the building collapses. No amount of appealing to authority will change this fact.

I noticed once again, in an effort to obfuscate the scientific evidence, you have regurgitated the same tired, irrelevant and false pseudo arguments you usually use in order to "make" your case. This oft repeated rebuttal of yours is nothing more than a weak attempt at distorting the facts and is getting a bit old. Readers please note that Scheuerman tends to focus on the HYPOTHETICAL, and thus draw the argument towards impossible to prove/disprove explainations for the physical collapse of the WTC buildings. In doing so he attempts to downplay the HARD EVIDENCE confirming that explosives WERE used on the buildings. Moreover, Scheuerman's various attempts at refuting the hard material evidence- that indicates the presence of explosive devices- is built entirely upon implausible and outright false statements (like the battery lead explanation).

Unlike yourself and supporters of the official account, people like Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin base their position, with regard to the WTC collapses, on factual evidence & established scientific principles. No amount of hypothetical posturing (and distortion of fact) from yourself or NIST - consisting of attempts that focus on how the buildings MAY have fallen- can rival the hard forensic proof we have. The evidence of MOLTEN STEEL, the THERMATE SIGNATURE, THE PULVERISED CONCRETE and THE COLLAPSE FEATURES all prove the explosive demolition hypothesis.

Moreover, your dismissal of the eyewitness testimony to extremely loud and violent explosions, some of which knocked individuals off their feet, and some of which occurred in floors well away from the fire areas, reeks of ratbaggery. Anyone researching these events will conclude that the explosions in question cannot all be explained away in mundane terms as you would like us to believe.

Arthur, pushing obviously bankrupt arguments debunks and discredits yourself. Whatever the reason for your actions I want you to seriously reconsider. In doing what you are doing you help to condemn future generations to a life of perpetual conflict and abject misery.

Although I earlier warned of deleting your disinformation I have replied to you here since you have shown us something slightly different. If you paste the same tripe as you have previously then your disinformation will be removed.