Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

And you answer a factual post with even more conspiratorial nonsense.

What a twat you are Albert.



Suck it up dumbass. Just another whackjob talking out of his arse, but convincingly enough to sell books to idiots like you.

Ryan wrote a letter dated Nov. 11 to an official of the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the federal agency probing the collapse of the 110-story buildings after the 2001 terrorist attacks -- and also posted on a Web site claiming a cover-up of details about the attacks.

Ryan's letter said that Underwriters Laboratories certified the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings. He questioned whether the fires in those buildings reached the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail, the South Bend Tribune reported in a story Monday. "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."

Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

The subsidiary that Ryan directed specializes in the testing of drinking water, according to the Web site for Environmental Health Laboratories.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-a...2050f9275.html

Background info., response from UL and 911Truth
(To keep this issue in context, background letters follow. These include an intoduction by 911Truth, the original letter from Kevin Ryan, UL's response to David Kubiak, David Kubiak's response to UL, then Ryan's excellent new article "A Personal Decision.")


UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2004111214405...

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.

911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Friday (11/12) that the NIST team under Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times wrote.

As the Times noted, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com )

-911Truth.org (nl)

-----------------------------------------

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

www.ehl.cc ). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at UL ). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org>

-----------------------------------------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected]

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

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.

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.

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".

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.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory....

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofS...

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB... (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

-----------------------------------------


UL's Letter Disowning Ryan and 911Truth's Response
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2004111912394...


On November 13th, 911Truth was contacted by Paul M. Baker, the Media Relations manager of Underwriters Laboratories, who requested that we post a response from their company to Kevin Ryan's letter regarding critical problems with recent conclusions of the NIST investigations.

We emailed back that in the interest of fairness and balance, we would be happy to post their statement, but asked that it specifically address the issues Ryan raised as well as their expected efforts to distance themselves from his remarks. Our request was repeated in a telephone conversation with Mr. Baker at 7:00 PM on November 16th, the day of Ryan's firing. Mr. Baker said he had no info on the termination and that one problem with our demand was that NIST contractually "owned" all the UL analysis data and therefore no one else was permitted to review or discuss it. Nevertheless, he said he understood the importance of the issue and vowed to consult UL lawyers and "respond appropriately."

The next day we finally received the following UL letter, which addressed none of our questions or concerns, so we responded immediately with the next note below. It is now 48 hours later and we still have received no word so we are bringing you what we've got.

We will be updating this report as developments unfold, but in the meantime some of you may want to contact UL yourselves in search of more enlightening answers.

To: W. David Kubiak
From: Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com
Subject: UL's statement regarding Kevin Ryan
Date sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 1124 -0600

Dear Mr. Kubiak, thank you for your willingness to post UL's statement regarding Kevin Ryan's letter on your 9-11 Visibility Project and 911Truth web sites. Please see attached:

Paul M. Baker
Manager, Media Relations
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Ill., USA
(847) 272-8800 ext. 41001
Cell: (847) 602-2828
Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com

UL Letter text:

On Nov. 11, 2004, a letter from Kevin Ryan, a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., addressed to the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), was posted on a Web site called the 9-11 Visibility Project (www.septembereleventh.org: 9-11 Visibility Project ). In the letter, Mr. Ryan speculated on the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without ULís knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on ULís behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

ULís Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with ULís Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NISTís request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in ULís water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. fully supports NISTís ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryanís letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victimsí families and their friends.

-----------------------

To: Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com
From: W. David Kubiak
Subject: Re: UL's statement regarding Kevin Ryan
Date sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:21:10 -0500

Dear Mr. Baker,

Thank you for the letter, but I notice that neither it or your note address the important issues we discussed last night. Since the NIST findings are critical to our nation's understanding of the events of 9/11, they have serious implications for our subsequent policies, governance and collective security. They thus demand the greatest degree of disclosure and transparency.

Your letter's dismissal of Mr. Ryan's "speculation" on these matters simply on the grounds that he was not in the loop and assigned to another job, hardly addresses the primary questions at hand.

* Was he in possession of the data he was discussing?

* Are his reasoning and conclusions sound?

* If UL repudiates his logic, where specifically do you find fault?

* What were the official grounds for his immediate firing?

* Does NIST's proprietary control of the UL WTC data (that you spoke of) mean that it cannot be released for review to any other respected authorities in the engineering, fire-prevention or materials testing fields?

* Since our national (and architectural) security depend so heavily on the truth and integrity of these NIST investigations, what is this bizarre "proprietary" secrecy all about?

In other words, it is fine to assert that Mr.Ryan was not speaking for UL, but we want -- and indeed urgently need -- to know what UL has to say on these matters for itself.

As you are perhaps aware, there is serious widespread dissatisfaction with the conduct and conclusions of the Kean 9/11 Commission, which has yet to furnish the promised "definitive" explanation of the critical events of that day. The documented omissions, contradictions and outright falsehoods in their final report undermine public confidence in their consequent recommendations and thus our hope for truly improved security.

The 9/11 Commission's flaws are largely attributed to commissioners' conflicts of interest, political pressure and obstructive official secrecy. That is why so many have looked to the NIST investigations for non-politicized truth, disclosure and accountability. However, the increasing secrecy now shrouding their own hearings and data as well as harsh reprisals against citizens like Mr.Ryan who dare to publicly discuss the evidence seem to openly betray those expectations.

For generations, Underwriters Laboratories has built a priceless reputation for speaking inconvenient truth to economic power and making our lives and products safer. It appears to many of us that Mr. Ryan's statement embodied the best of that tradition and we wonder why you would not stand behind him now.

In sincere hope of an honest exchange on these issues,

W. David Kubiak
Executive Director
911truth.org

---------------------------------------------------

A Personal Decision
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2005061110045...

Fear Factors By Kevin Ryan
June 9th 2005


Have you ever found yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify a report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all.

To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We're at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. Additionally we've adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we'll always enjoy a limitless share of the world's resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree.

All people lie to themselves. It's one of the most important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g. nationalism and racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we essentially trade everything we have for what's behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near.

The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage.<1,2> Undoubtedly the secret Energy Taskforce report of May 2001 would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few of us will survive the coming storm. In essence, they're betting against us.

Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It's not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end.<3> In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn't really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics.

The three WTC buildings in question weren't all designed the same way and weren't all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government's report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes.

To follow the latest "leading hypothesis", what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction).

How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem.

Solving the problem is a personal challenge, and involves at least three-steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong, and that we were fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in a conscious manner. Obviously the US government must be substantially changed and/or forgiven. New cooperative, multinational agreements would need to be implemented immediately.<4>

If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there's a real chance you're going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we're all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what's behind the fantasy curtain.

FOOTNOTES:
1. http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
2. http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/12 /
3. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22...
4. The Uppsala Protocol | Peak Oil
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2005061110045...

(eom)



911Truth.Org - Investigation. Education. Accountability. Reform. /

Did the 9/11 Commission Report bother to question how the "nervous and highly emotional" barely 5-foot tall Hani Hanjour (whose flight instructors went on record as confirming he could barely fly a single-engine Cessna) managed to:

-Overpower former Marine combat fighter pilot, Charles Burlingame, who was in the cockpit

-Vertical and lateral navigate a Boeing 757 commercial aircraft via a complex (and unfamiliar) array avionics

-Perfectly locate the Pentagon without the help of any air-traffic or ground control whatsoever

-Perform a 350mph descending corkscrew turn of 330 degrees (with the precision of an ace)

-Bring the enormous plane to ground level without its weight turbulence affecting a single blade of grass

-Clip just 5 light posts along the way, dodging the rest

-And finally smash its 125 foot diameter wingspan into the façade of the Pentagon, leaving a 26-foot hole and no wreckage

FBI photos show Pentagon during wake of 9/11 | The Independent
And why didn't the air defences systems set up to defend the Pentagon not shoot the plane down?

Edit:- Sorry I can't publish the picture I wanted to.