Kevin Ryan Launches All-Out Attack on Mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement, Labels AA77 Crash Skeptics "Disruptors"

Keenan's picture

After exposing his true LIHOP colors in his series of articles on "Demolition Access to the WTC" in which he hilariously concludes that "All roads lead to Saudi Arabia" concerning who rigged the WTC with explosives, Kevin Ryan in his latest screed on 911Bogger has now become full partners with the Fake Wing of 9/11 Truth who insist that the question of "What Hit the Pentagon?" is a "useless question" that is designed to "hijack the investigation into 9/11 truth".

Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 Truth Movement's most prominent researchers and leaders, such as David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage, Dwain Deets, Envar Masud, Kevin Barrett, Barry Zwicker, Dave McGowan, AK Dewdney, CIT, P4T, Aidan Monaghan, and others not only believe the question, "what Hit the Pentagon", is important and useful for uncovering the full truth of 9/11, but also believe that there are good reasons to doubt the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon, along with the vast majority of 9/11 truthers, Kevin Ryan has seen fit to dismiss off all of these people and accuse them of purposely disrupting the truth movement. His conclusion is that this "what hit the Pentagon" question "is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed."

So, to summarize Kevin Ryan's 9/11 Truth views:

1) Demolition of the WTC towers was perpetrated by Al Qeada, Saudi Arabia, and the Bush family

2) AA77 really DID crash at the Pentagon, and only disrupters would question this

3) Only anti-semites and disruptors would "distract" the movement towards evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11

Can you spell L - I - H - O - P ?

As far as I'm concerned, Kevin Ryan has now completed the deliberate step by step controlled demolition of his credibility capital and his credibility as a 9/11 truth advocate/researcher is now completely bankrupted.

_____________________________________

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-17/visibility-911-dozen-questons-abou...

A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

Kevin Ryan

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.

Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]
How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]
Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]
Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]
Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]
Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]
Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]
How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]
Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“[11] Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”[12]

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

[1] Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

[2] Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[3] Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well. For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070... and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographi...

[4] Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul...

[5] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

[6] 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

[7] David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

[8] The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission, http://www.911independentcommission.org/

[9] Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

[10] See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,

http://www.911workinggroup.org/

Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,

http://archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html

Here’s an example:

UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01098.pdf

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

[11] Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25

[12] Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0tFvlQ2F0&feature=player_embedded

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Keenan's picture

OMG! Kevin Ryan's most hilarious piece of absurdity

Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.

So, am I to understand that Kevin is asserting the even the admittedly too-small-for-a-Boeing-757 hole that was left in the wall of the Pentagon was not actually made by the plane, but by explosives, because "the plane would have had little penetrating power?"

So, Kevin's working theory of what happened at the Pentagon is that just before AA77 slammed into the Pentagon, pre-planted explosives went off inside the Pentagon to open up a hole in the wall that for some reason was too small for the plane to have flown into and disappear, even though the plane itself could not have penetrated through the wall, so the plane itself bounced off the wall.

So, if one were to accept Kevin Ryan's logic:

1) the plane could not have made a hole in the wall

2) the hole, which is admittedly too small anyway, was made with explosives

3) the plane largely bounced off the wall - and fell to the ground outside the Pentagon

4) Therefore, the 100 ton airliner, including the engines, wings, tail section, fuselage, the seats, luggage, everything, would have remained outside of the Pentagon. And this theory is supported by the easily checked evidence in the form of publicly available photos?

Here are 3 of the before pictures:

Now, compare with the post-crash pictures. Where is the 100 tons of pieces of a Boeing 757 among the tiny amount of debris from the explosives that blew building debris outward from inside the Pentagon, and the trailers, cars, and other items that were already on the ground in front of the building?






Wow. I think this is a first! Kevin Ryan is the first person I have heard of who believes both that a) the hole in the Pentagon facade was made with explosives, and b) the plane really did hit the Pentagon.

Now, if you dear reader are skeptical after examining the photos that a 100 ton Boeing 757 bounced off the wall and landed in front of the Pentagon in pieces on 9/11, then you must be a disruptor and are trying to sabotage the efforts to search for the truth about 9/11, according to Kevin Ryan

Adam Syed's picture

Attention Cosmos, Kevin Ryan and company!

I rebut Chris Sarns' hit piece (which is being favorably cited in the blog entry reposted by keenan) against CIT here:

Answering Chris Sarns' "Summary and Analysis of National Security Alert"

 

Adam Syed's picture

On a thread on Betsy Metz' wall...

This thread was in response to Betsy's posting of my blog here about the Frank Legge e-mail exchange:

  • Kevin Ryan ?"wtcdemolition" is the most obvious disinfo site I have seen in seven years.

    Monday at 6:17pm · · 2 people

 

ETA What is up with the image embedding function?

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6849/ryano.jpg

Adam Syed's picture

After Kevin Ryan pops his head in, I challenge him

And later this:

 

  • Adam Syed

    Hey Kevin Ryan,

    Your
    deafening silence toward me with regard to the issues on which I have
    challenged you is indeed very disconcerting and telling.

    Over at blogger, it must be nice for your side to be able to have total control of the debate ...because
    with the exception of Deets, blogger has banned literally EVERYONE who
    can articulately argue in favor of the CIT evidence. Does it give you
    the jollies to see Dwain Deets' logical and lucid comments get voted
    down into the cellar because he dares to defend CIT and agrees with the
    majority of the truth movement that AA77 did not crash there? The anti
    CIT comments do not get challenged because they are salient, but because
    a huge purge occurred this summer where the other side was silenced.

    And why, once again, in your "Who Had Access to the WTC" paper, is the name Larry Silverstein mentioned not once?

    Given
    that you were FIRED from your position at Underwriters Laboratory for
    having a dissenting opinion, it is quite the irony of ironies that you
    are now participating in a system that does the exact same thing, over
    at 911blogger.

    Tuesday at 9:26pm · · 1 person

 

Keenan's picture

Keven Ryan accuses WTCD of being disinfo

From a public facebook posting:

Kevin Ryan: "'wtcdemolition' is the most obvious disinfo site I have seen in seven years."

When asked to respond to specific criticisms on WTCD of Kevin's "research", Kevin Ryan runs away.

kate of the kiosk's picture

he is an ass

how dare he

kate of the kiosk's picture

and i am tired

of CIT

Adam Syed's picture

Oh...

I guess I'm tired of controlled demolition then.

Annoymouse's picture

Take CIT out of the Pentagon

I have no problem with CIT. I give them props for putting their asses, money, family and safety on the line and collecting valuable evidence.

But...maybe it would be a good idea to chop up the NSA video and extract the important stuff and present it in a way, by video, that excludes CIT as much as possible. Maybe provide the questions in text on the video then allow the eyewitness to answer the question.

The fakers over at 911Blogger obsess over CIT and the personalities. But they rarely address the evidence and what it means to 9/11 Truth. WTCDemolition also doesn't seem to consider the ramifications of the Pentagon attack either. IMO, the Pentagon scene and obvious phony set-up are, at least, just as damning as the WTC Demolition evidence.

gretavo's picture

actually we take the Pentagon issue very seriously...

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2419

That's a link to a thread where we try to make sense of the fact that unlike with the WTC demolitions, the fake truthers seem strangely wedded to the OCT at the Pentagon... we have speculated before that it may mean that for some reason exposure of the Pentagon fraud might be the most damaging of all to the perps.

Keenan's picture

"WTCDemolition also doesn't

"WTCDemolition also doesn't seem to consider the ramifications of the Pentagon attack either."

You haven't read much of this site, have you? If you were more familiar with the frequent discussions on this site regarding the Pentagon attack you wouldn't be making such a statement.

gretavo's picture

well then...

you and KoK should chill out and rest for a while. :)

willyloman's picture

yes, Ryan is an ass and yes, CIT is tiresome

Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon and CIT's Pentagon and Department of the Army "witnesses" don't carry much weight in my book.

SOMETHING hit the Pentagon no matter how many endorsements the father of the modern drone gives Aldo and company.

There IS another possibility folks... and THAT is the story of the Pentagon.

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

Keenan's picture

And I'm tired of JREF-style pseudo-skeptics

such as yourself who comes on here disguised as an uber-skeptic to debunk thermite at the WTC using the exact same identical tactics as Judy Jetson Woods, the TrueFaction shills, and the JREFers. And then your jumping on the band wagon with the anti-CIT brigade with the same exact deceptive arguments and bullshit as all the other shills and fakes is not going to impress people here. You may be able to fool some people, willyloman, but most people here can see right through your schtick. Why don't you go to the JREF forum where you belong?

To the mods: Why are pseudo-skeptics allowed to post here at WTCD, especially after having established a clear pattern of dishonesty?

willyloman's picture

JREF, JREF... everybody's JREF

"Agree with me or you're all JREF!" keenan

That's the kind of tired "guilt by association" crap that makes CIT looks so bad in the first place.

JREF, Judy Woods, Truefaction... got 'em all lumped in there, don't you? But you forgot to mention Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, and their other partner who helped set up their disinfo website, Gregg Roberts. Funny how you forgot them, huh?

Well guess what? It wasn't thermite... they admitted that

It wasn't thermate... they admitted that

It wasn't superthermite or even "nanothermite"... and they even admitted that many times over.

I said it before and I will say it again... it was conventional high explosives... the kind Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts refused to test for... that's what took down those towers.

And yes, CIT is still tiresome.

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

Keenan's picture

Judy Jetson, TrueFaction, JREF, and willyloman all agree

that the existence of thermite/thermate/super thermine/nanothermite at the WTC has been debunked.

Thanks for playing, willyloman. I'm saving this one for posterity. You can't possibly believe that you have credibilty here at WTCD after that, can you?

willyloman's picture

Do you ever just listen to yourself?

I mean, seriously... do you?

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

Keenan's picture

Do you ever stop lying?

Or can you not help yourself? Is it an addiction...or a pay check that makes you do it?

willyloman's picture

Weren't you repremanded before for doing that?

Didn't they tell you that you can't just accuse people of being a paid agent in an earlier discussion?

and here you go again.

"JREFer", "Liar", "paid agent" ... you sound more and more like Aldo every day

If it weren't for unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, you really wouldn't have anything at all, would you?

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

Keenan's picture

Yet another straw man and diversion

I didn't call you an agent. I asked you if you ever stop lying, and asked you if it is because you are addicted to it or because you receive a pay check.

You are a liar, willyloman, as has been established in numerous threads here over the last 8+ months. You have been caught lying over and over again and incessantly using straw man arguments and other deceptive tactics. Your behavior is identical to that of the JREFer pseudo-skeptics. I'm not the one who needs to resort to unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, that is your modus operandi.

gretavo's picture

explain...

Willyloman: Well guess what? It wasn't thermite... they admitted that
It wasn't thermate... they admitted that
It wasn't superthermite or even "nanothermite"... and they even admitted that many times over.

 You should cite sources for such claims whenever you make them, imo.  It makes perfect sense that both conventional high explosives and some type of aluminothermic incendiary were used.  The latter for their ability to compromise the structure quietly, the former for their quick destructive potential when needed/convenient.  Needed during the "collapse", convenient during other distracting events like plane crashes.

willyloman's picture

Sure, I would be glad to

If I could, just for clarification, before I provide the links you asked for, I would like to address your feeling about the use of "nanothermite"

If they did use it to "weaken" the structure, then it would be the first time in the history of explosive controlled demolition that it was used in such a way and there is a very good reason for that.

Again, the point of controlled demolition is "control". "Weakening" the steel prior to demolition probably isn't a very good idea in that as the steel weakens, the structure itself weakens... and if that happens, well how do you know if something doesn't fail prior to the explosive demolition? It seems to me you would be adding an uncontrolled element into the mix, when really what you want is for everything to be precisely controlled.

and again, what are we talking about? A 64th of an inch thick "nanothermite paint" on a column that is 5 feet by three feet of extruded 5" thick structural steel with another 5" thick steel plate located INSIDE the column?

what exactly is a 64th of an inch of paint going to do to that?

Even Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts have stated repeatedly that the stuff they found is probably just from an "electric match" and that may be more likely than anything else. And of course, the reference for that is in their Nanothermite paper itself.

but if you guys wish to continue promoting BYU's "thermite" distraction, be my guest.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/neoliberal-byu-financed-and-p...

"It wasn't thermite... they admitted that" well, as for references, the fact that they wrote the "NANOthermite" paper pretty much proves my point there. Thermite and "nanothermite" are NOT the same thing. They are not arguing that they found THERMITE in the dust, they are claiming they found "nanothermite", so that is pretty much an admission that speaks for itself really.

"It wasn't thermate... they admitted that" and again, the sulfur mixed version of thermite is now a forgotten memory and again, the same argument holds true... they don't claim they found THERMATE in their paper, so that pretty much speaks for itself.

"It wasn't superthermite or even "nanothermite"... and they even admitted that many times over." - now, I of course cite first and foremost their Nanothermite paper which states clearly that the red-grey chips they found may be nothing more than particles from an "electric match" which ignited the REAL damage causing material, conventional high explosives and then they even go so far as to suggest someone else test for residues of such. Then at the end of their paper, they clearly state again that what they found may be EITHER a pyrotechnic or an explosive (they theorize it could be a high explosive with the proper amount of organic material mixed in, but again, they don't come to that CONCLUSION)

"The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.” Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts, Harrit, et al

So that is twice in their nanothermite paper that they admit it's not conclusive that "nanothermite" was what was used during the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

So there is one reference

Another example is from a discussion in which Gregg Roberts himself states that he doesn't think that "nanothermite" can pulverize anything. That means it's not a high explosive and if it isn't a high explosive, it's NOT a cutter-charge either. Ergo... "nanothermite" can't be primarily responsible for the controlled demoliton of the Twin towers and Building 7.

"Question: I was having a conversation with someone in the military who uses thermite when they enter doors and things. And that thermite doesn’t create and explosion. it just creates a bright light and instant melting, so is that because of air pressure that caused the explosions after the thermite went off or is there another reason?

Gregg Roberts: I wouldn’t say that thermite caused blasts, I would say that would have to have been (unintelligable)… other than explosives which the government has refused to test for (the same way Roberts refused to test for them?)… it would seem to make sence to do those tests when you can see things are shattered…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nKOwgd_dT4

now here you have two clear examples of Roberts, Harrit, Jones, and others stating they need to have the dust tested for the same things that I have been arguing we test for (which of course makes me "disinfo JREFer" to people like Keenan)... however, When I asked Roberts to do this very same thing, this is the response I got...

“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Gregg Roberts 2008

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/some-straight-forward-questio...

Formulate your own conclusions.

My position is this:

1. The Twin Towers were taken out by explosive controlled demolition (top down style)
2. Building 7 was taken out by explosive controlled demolition (bottom up style)
3. Something hit the Pentagon and it wasn't Flight 77
4. there probably were no hijackers on board or at least there is no reasonable evidence to show that there were
5. planes were hijacked by remote piloting systems
6. Muslim extremist hijackers is a myth
7. JUST LIKE Gregg Roberts, Steven Jones, Nile Harrit and all the others who wrote the nanothermite paper, I strongly suggest that we test for residues of other explosive agents like PETN, RDX, HMX, TNT...

these are my positions on the matter

now, I have written and researched for years and this is what I have come to.. if that makes me a JREFer as Keenan claims, then I am certainly surprised that JREF supports these positions.

Sorry I didn't cite sources in the previous comment and I hope this clarifies my position.

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

gretavo's picture

reply to willy from gret

If I could, just for clarification, before I provide the links you
asked for, I would like to address your feeling about the use of
"nanothermite"

nanothermite or regular thermite, I don't care.  regular thermite would
have sufficed, as far as I can see.  the nanothermite possibility
depends entirely on the credibility of the samples studied, and I can't
assess that.  I can say, however, that by presenting this evidence a
number of personalities in the truth movement have staked their
credibility and in theory their freedom, since if they are found to have
knowingly presented their findings on spiked dust samples they would be
accessories to the crimes of 9/11.  either way someone has a lot of
splainin to do.

If they did use it to "weaken" the structure, then it would be the
first time in the history of explosive controlled demolition that it was
used in such a way and there is a very good reason for that.

Again, the point of controlled demolition is "control". "Weakening" the
steel prior to demolition probably isn't a very good idea in that as the
steel weakens, the structure itself weakens... and if that happens,
well how do you know if something doesn't fail prior to the explosive
demolition? It seems to me you would be adding an uncontrolled element
into the mix, when really what you want is for everything to be
precisely controlled.

Here we're really talking about a "thermite-like incendiary" of some
kind.  The essential quality of it that we can know is that it produced
significant quantities of molten iron.  I can think of many reasons why
one wouldn't use thermite in a conventional, legal demolition.  Molten
iron is a pain in the butt to clean up, I bet.  Similarly no one would
attempt a top down demolition of the twin towers because to break the
lower section entirely you would need to drop an upper section that is
at least as big on it.  To attempt a top down demolition of a building
using just a small fraction of the upper floors would be folly, but if
you're trying to create the illusion (one good enough to fool a dumbed
down population bombarded with ostensibly diverse propaganda) of a
gravity-driven collapse then you would need to use explosives whose
destruction is instantaneous and can therefore be precisely timed.  You
reduce the amount needed (and the likelihood of its detection) by evenly
thining out the core, perhaps with thermite (we are told the safety factor of the towers'
gravity load bearing was 20X, meaning you could thin the core columns
significantly without initiating structural failure.)

and again, what are we talking about? A 64th of an inch thick
"nanothermite paint" on a column that is 5 feet by three feet of
extruded 5" thick structural steel with another 5" thick steel plate
located INSIDE the column?

what exactly is a 64th of an inch of paint going to do to that?

a sol-gel, not a paint.  i believe that sol comes from solution, i.e.
dissolved and gel is the general category of material that looks, feels
and behaves like a gel.  suppose you didn't apply it in a thin  coat but
formed it into gel filled tubes an inch thick, wrapped around each
column at a 90 degree angle? im not an expert but it isnt hard to think
of ways such a material could have been an important part of the 9/11
plot.

Even Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts have stated repeatedly that the
stuff they found is probably just from an "electric match" and that may
be more likely than anything else. And of course, the reference for that
is in their Nanothermite paper itself.

nope, as you admit later they said essentially that for all they knew it
COULD come from explosive matches used to detonate otherwise very
stable conventional high explosives. i see nothing but them not jumping
to unwarranted conclusions.

So that is twice in their nanothermite paper that they admit it's not
conclusive that "nanothermite" was what was used during the controlled
demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Who cares if anything is "conclusive" at this point?  Its presence in the dust is still anomalous and suspicious.

Another example is from a discussion in which Gregg Roberts himself
states that he doesn't think that "nanothermite" can pulverize anything.
That means it's not a high explosive and if it isn't a high explosive,
it's NOT a cutter-charge either. Ergo... "nanothermite" can't be
primarily responsible for the controlled demoliton of the Twin towers
and Building 7.

It doesn't need to be a cutter charge, as I explained above.  As for
what someone named Gregg Roberts claims to believe about the properties
of nanothermite, I have read enough to date on the subject to say that
it is generally understood that the nature of the aluminothermic
reaction involved can be "fine-tuned" as it were by carefully varying
the scale on which the reactants are mixed--the finer the grain, the
greater the surface area, the more robust the reaction, up to and
including one that is highly explosive.

willyloman's picture

thank you for the reply, Gret

All I am saying is that we need to get samples and test for the residues of high explosives. Could be PETN, could be RDX, could be C4... no one knows till we test for it.

That really is pretty much my entire point.

But just for the record, Gregg Roberts is one of the authors of the "nanothermite" paper and aside from his involvement with Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, I don't know much about him save the few contacts he and I have had.

"a sol-gel, not a paint. i believe that sol comes from solution, i.e. dissolved and gel is the general category of material that looks, feels and behaves like a gel."

from what I understand a "sol gel" simply refers to a solid suspended in a liquid. Now, the liquid could be there for several reasons... could be an oxygenated solution and that would have to be the case in order for the "nano" sized particles to make any difference at all because if they can't get to oxygen to burn, the increased surface area doesn't really matter.

And I will tell you, your tube idea as far as a placement method makes a lot more sense than Jim Hoffman's "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs" that's for sure.

"the finer the grain, the greater the surface area, the more robust the reaction, up to and including one that is highly explosive."

exactly. That is the point of having "nano" sized particles... however...

the surface area is only relevant in relation to access to oxygen. Needs that to burn.

Well we all know the "red grey chips" were hardened and layered, like DRY PAINT...

so how is that going to have access to oxygen? and for that matter, how is that a "sol gel"? Now unless you are saying there was a sol gel present and used that they didn't find evidence of EXCEPT for the "iron rich spheres" (which I think could EASILY have been the trusses and floor pans) those "red grey chips" do not match your definition.

all this said. I think we need to press to test for the residues of high explosives. Nothing says both weren't used and I just think it is important to find out exactly what happened.

thanks

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK

Tahooey's picture

wtc demolition

willyloman: "Weakening" the steel prior to demolition probably isn't a very good
idea in that as the steel weakens, the structure itself weakens... and
if that happens, well how do you know if something doesn't fail prior to
the explosive demolition? It seems to me you would be adding an uncontrolled element into the
mix, when really what you want is for everything to be precisely
controlled.

For an engineer with details of the structural properties of the elements at hand, it would not be difficult to remove specific columns while maintaining full control of the "collapse"

Have you ever chopped down a tree?  Do you know how woodcutters make a notch on one side of the tree, knowing full well the tree is NOT going to fall towards that side, so that when they do make the final cut, the tree will not be held back by the bark on the backside?  In fact it is this earlier cut that provides complete control of the collapse. 

So speculating, it might make sense that when taking down a building constructed with a huge factor of safety, it might be a good idea to get half those core columns out of the way before you make the final "cut" with the incendiaries, just to make sure things come straight down instead of several blocks sideways

gretavo's picture

mmmm... desperation?

It's nice to see wtcd being taken this seriously by the fake truth leaders.

Chris's picture

Coming from Kevin that is

Coming from Kevin that is indeed a badge of honor. And he sure is running, he knows all about this site, Ive sent him every story about him that has been posted here and he has yet to comment. He did answer me at one point saying-"I was not aware of my latest trend towards LIHOP". And I guess hes kind of got a point in that hes all about framing Saudi Arabia for the attacks. The man is a joke. Yes Kevin, you are a joke to 9/11 activists who are actually capable of thinking for themselves. Is it money or just plain hatred and fear of muslims that causes you to do what you do? Either way you should be ashamed.

juandelacruz's picture

What is Kevin Ryan's role?

What is Kevin Ryan's role? Strange positions on truth/non-truth. He puts out positions that are idiotic, but I do not think he is an idiot.

- WTC was controlled demo, but the Saudi's did it
- AA77 hit the Pentagon after explosives opened holes into building
- He fails to mention Silverstein and Mossad complicity in a long piece on WTC security.

One day he should be investigated for misinforming the public and possibly conniving with the perps to let them evade justice.

gretavo's picture

he will be Juan

Anyone who thinks they are going to get away with having been a fake truther should think twice. It doesn't matter what kind of a reputation they think they have--hindsight will be very clear in this regard and you can be sure that future generations will have all the information they need to discern the genuine truthers from the shills. Even if they manage to evade justice in their lifetimes, they should know that everyone including their families will be aware of the type of person they really were.

gretavo's picture

yep

"After exposing his true LIHOP colors in his series of articles on "Demolition Access to the WTC" in which he hilariously concludes that "All roads lead to Saudi Arabia" concerning who rigged the WTC with explosives"

The latest piece of this I've heard is that the big secret about 9/11 is that the hijackers were in fact trained Saudi fighter pilots. Yep, u heard it hear first! You see, it's the only way they could manage those fancy maneuvers!

Keenan's picture

Are you friggin' serious?

Keven is really claiming that the hijackers were in fact trained Saudi fighter pilots? At what point would it be appropriate to declare that Kevin Ryan has blood on his hands for dishonestly participating in the bloody warmongering propaganda against the deliberate framed Arabs/Muslims?

gretavo's picture

no, not Kevin...

...some dude on the street...