Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers Parts 1 & 2

[autorank]

These two essays prsent a shocking theory on the destruction on 9/11. I can't evaluate it, other than to say that it's well written and comes from a "former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL)" who was fired when he questioned NIST's findings on the destruction of the WTC. This also provides a nice set of interconnections between key corporations, the Bush family, BCCI and the Saudi's.

Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Saturday, 11 July 2009, 7:03 pm
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00124.htm#a
********************

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - tenants

Kevin R. Ryan, 7-09-09


Note: The author is indebted to a few particularly useful sources of information and inspiration, including Russ Baker’s book “Family of Secrets”, the websites nndb.com, sourcewatch.org and secinfo.com, and Richard Gage.

On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press -- “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.” On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech -- “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”

But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush’s own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush’s conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact <1, 2, 3, 4>, but it was Bush’s own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of the official line, who ultimately proved that explosives were necessary.<2, 5, 6, 7>

This leads us to ask the obvious question -- Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center towers? To answer that question, we should first consider who had access to the buildings, specifically the areas of the buildings that would be relevant to a demolition operation. We should also consider the time periods of interest. Those who had access at the necessary times should be further considered in terms of their ability to obtain the necessary explosive technologies and expertise, their ability to be secretive, and the possibility that they could have benefited from the destruction of the WTC buildings or from the resulting War on Terror. But one thing is certain, unless it was done by one person acting alone, it must have been a conspiracy.

AND

UQ Wire: Kevin Ryan 911 Essay - Part 2
Thursday, 13 August 2009, 11:58 pm
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0908/S00107.htm

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

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security

Kevin R. Ryan
See also… Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers

Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers? This is the second essay in a series that attempts to answer that question. The first installment began by considering the tenants that occupied the impact zones and the other floors that might have played a useful role in the demolition of the WTC towers. <1> The result was a picture of connections to organizations that had access to explosive materials and to the expertise required to use explosives. Additionally it was seen that, in the years preceding 9/11, the impact zone tenants had all made structural modifications to the areas where the airliners struck the buildings.
Free: Scoop SwineFlu Alerts
3.60% p.a. On-Call: Apply Online
Powershop Pioneers - Join & Win!

The management representatives of these tenant companies were seen to be secretive and powerful. Through these powerful people, the tenants were connected to organizations that benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks, including the defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). The tenants also had strong connections to the Bush family and their corporate network, including Dresser Industries (now Halliburton) and UBS, and to Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries, reported to have brokered the insider trading deals. There were also links between these tenant companies and the terrorist-financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

Throughout this review we should keep in mind that, according to 2009 estimates, the membership of Al Qaeda’s conspiracy network is estimated to be “as low as 200 or 300.” <2> Other reports suggest the group numbers in several thousands, and that Al Qaeda maintains a presence in at least forty different countries, not including the western countries that fear it the most. Including those western countries, however, it was reported in 1996 that Al Qaeda had an economic and financial establishment spanning more than thirteen countries. <3> It is clear, therefore, that Al Qaeda is typically described as a “vast conspiracy”. , <4,5>

Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST. More information http://www.ultruth.com/ feedback kncryan @ msn.com

[Realityhack]

1. Please do your homework on your source. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

2. Refute the message, not the messenger. It's the DU way.

If you think you can refute the message, have at it. If all you can do is take aim at the messenger, put down your gun. It's ironic
that DU rules forbid personal attacts & questioning someone's motives, yet OCTheorists attack anyone whose message they don't like.

[Realityhack]

3. Ryan's claims have been repeatedly refuted in the past.

Why should I re-type refutations of the theories of a known liar?

The OP stated:
"I can't evaluate it, other than to say that it's well written and comes from a..."
He sited who the essay was written by as a *potential* reason to believe it or take it more seriously as well as admitting he could not evaluate it fully. I simply pointed out that the source he seems to think is reliable/trustworthy is not.

BTW are you honestly not able to read these pieces and spot glaring errors?

[BuddyBoy]

4. So have all of the claims made by those on your side

Yet, you always act as though none of them have been. That's hypocritical, isn't it?

[Realityhack]

5. Not really

There is a big difference between making an argument against something or claiming to refute it and actually doing so. As you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the two I do not expect you to understand but it is in fact the case.

[BuddyBoy]

6. No, REALLY. The OCT has been comprehensively proven to be

a total fabrication. Over and over. Time and time again for nearly eight years. Official Government Conspiracy Theorists HAVE
displayed amazing ability and energy in defending the indefensible, arguing the impossible, shooting messengers,
and insulting posters who are interested in finding, expressing, discussing, and sharing information about 9/11. The only posters
who are spared are partisans who act as advocates for the Bush 9/11 fairy tale.

[Realityhack]

7. I think we will have to remain in disagreement over that.

I have read many many theories and ideas about what happened or did not happen over the years. You would need to provide me with something quite compelling and so far nobody has.

Maybe we can at least agree no nuclear weapons were involved?

[vincent_vega_lives]

21. Good luck

Buddyboy is a No Planer.

[Realityhack]

22. Yeah I know.

And at some point I will invoke Lared's rule/law but as he is a new-ish poster I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt on no-brains for a bit.
I am about done though. I can only take so many non-sequitors before giving up.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. Ha Ha

Right... the rightous war of text waged right here on the interwebs.

Wow that is pathetic.

[autorank]

24. OMG, typing is such an ordeal. Why not cut & paste a few urls?

[jakeXT]

11. just leave out the www and the website works

http://unansweredquestions.org/



you didn't kill the messenger

[Realityhack]

13. Um... that wasn't what I was pointing out.

Thank you for correcting the URL but my issue was with the author of the articles.
The OP seemed impressed by his credentials and a story that is quite distorted. I thought he should look up the author and get more information on his known silliness.

[autorank]

23. Do you have a substantive reference.

I qualify the post and you complain. If I hadn't qualified it, you'd complain. Then you offer nothing
other than a "n/t" - lets see the critique on this guy.

[autorank]

26. Absent other links, here's one of interest

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse:
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04


SOUTH BEND — The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.

snip

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

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

Lots more at link

[Realityhack]

27. Well you are getting warmer.

Now you have at least a couple of Ryan's lies documented.
Next you can document all the logical and factual errors he makes in the links you have sited.

[autorank]

32. You're turn

I post this, qualify it, and then you gripe because I've not done research. YOu claim you have but you won't
post any of it. This is a new level of user-sloth. Show some links.

btw, that article was fairly decent but had charge-counter charge from UL and Ryan.


I don't have any theory on the WTC collapse other than we need a much more comprehensive investigation than
we've had on the entire affair.

[Realityhack]

35. Ok.

You see a charge counter charge.
Does the UL in fact certify structural steel?

[BuddyBoy]

8. 110 stories pulverised to dust in 10 seconds. n/t

n/t

[Realityhack]

9. Yes we understand you are a CD believer.

Unfortunately for you there is no evidence of such occurring and plenty of evidence that it did not.

[BuddyBoy]

10. And what would that evidence be? n/t

n/t

[Realityhack]

12. Buddy,

I seriously doubt any evidence would change your mind, and there have been a number of long discussions about various evidence before so I do not feel the need to replicate them.
A few examples however are:
Slow bowing of exterior columns that does not indicate a demolition scenario but supports a collapse scenario.
Lack of shock waves that would indicate explosives and would not be possible to hide.
No need for explosives in order to explain the complete collapse contrary to many peoples uninformed claims.

And of course there are more but it would be polite of you to use the search function to find what has already been discussed in detail.

[BuddyBoy]

14. Well, THAT surely doesn't disprove the controlled demolition

And may I remind YOU that it be polite of YOU to use the search function to find what has already been discussed in detail.
You might also want to take a look at some of the photographic evidence. That's the easiest way for most people to understand
that explosions blew up the buildings and pulverized them to smithereens. No planes crashed into them and the relatively small
fires couldn't have possibly caused the buildings to be pulverized, nor could they have caused the seismic spikes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. pulverized

you keep using this word. The buildings were not pulverized. The non structural floor concrete was pretty much "pulverized" by the force generated by the accelerating mass of the building above the collapse point.

Energy is energy whether chemical or kinetic.

[BuddyBoy]

16. Well, I know that some of y'all claim the fake plane nose coming

out the other side of WTC2 was "office contents" or a dust cloud but if the only thing that was pulverized was the non-structural
floor concrete, how did everything else get turned into little bitty particles and dust?

[vincent_vega_lives]

18. "little bitty particles and dust'

was made up of mostly concrete and wall board.

Most everything else was crushed by several thousand tons of debris. A huge ammount of items survived the collapse however.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2873.html

[Realityhack]

19. Thanks for the link VVL

Doubt it will help but it was nice of you to provide it.

[Realityhack]

17. 'that' refering to which item?

"And may I remind YOU that it be polite of YOU to use the search function to find what has already been discussed in detail."
Check my profile. I read and participated in those threads when they were created. I am quite familiar with what they contain.

"You might also want to take a look at some of the photographic evidence. That's the easiest way for most people to understand
that explosions blew up the buildings and pulverized them to smithereens."
I have yet to see any photo showing a shock wave from explosives being detonated.
I have yet to see any photo showing a collapse that is other than what one would expect without any aid from explosives.
In fact I have yet to see any photo demonstrating in any way that the buildings exploded.

"pulverized them to smithereens" is a highly subjective statement. Large sections of steel were left including standing sections of wall, compressed chunks of debris such as IIRC filing cabinets etc.

I HAVE seen lots of photographic/videographic evidence of the planes hitting the buildings which you claim never happened. I have seen lots of other evidence that supports the photographic evidence as well. Evidence that you dismiss with hand waving and no actual debunking or addressing in any way.
The aircraft hitting the WTC towers is one of the least disputable events of 9-11. Reasonable people may disagree on what Chaney did or how much the government knew and when, but disputing the impact of the planes on the WTC is one tiny step away from claiming the towers are still standing.

"the relatively small fires couldn't have possibly caused the buildings to be pulverized, nor could they have caused the seismic spikes."
This is called a straw man. It is a logical fallacy and has no place in reasoned argumentation. If this is the extent of your critical thinking ability I seriously doubt you will ever understand the world around you much less be able to make a logical, well reasoned argument regarding the events of 9-11.

[SDuderstadt]

28. More of your bullshit...

can you provide any evidence that either tower fell in "10 seconds"? Because, if you remotely knew what the fuck you're talking about, you wouldn't make such a goofy claim.

[BuddyBoy]

29. STOP twisting my words and implying that I lied.

I never said that the towers fell in "10 seconds". They didn't FALL. They were pulverized. Do any OCTheorists ever
even PRETEND to be fair?

[AZCat]

30. No, they weren't pulverized either.

Parts of them might have been (gravity is an awesome force) but certainly not all of the towers were pulverized.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude, how did the Towers get to the ground...

if they didn't fall?

Do any "truthers" pretend to be smart?

[rollingrock]

33. Here you go, goofy

an OCTer who doesn't understand what' he's talking about because he never bothered to read the NIST report? shocking!


6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[AZCat]

34. You missed the important section.

Did you see the part that said "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers"? The eleven seconds for WTC 1 and nine seconds for WTC 2 are not total collapse times.

[Realityhack]

36. A little knowledge is truely a dangerous thing.

Nice to see you AZCat. How are things?

[AZCat]

37. Been pretty busy all summer.

At least now I'm back down to one project on my desk. How about you?

[Realityhack]

38. Supprisingly well.

The company I work for is weathering the storm nicely.
I hope your being busy means some new building in sight.

[AZCat]

39. Sort of.

Right now I'm working on a different project - industrial rather than commercial. We've had to diversify since the commercial construction business slowed down. It's okay though - I like working on new kinds of projects. Commercial buildings can get a little repetitive.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. More LIES from the LYING LIAR

Kevin Ryan.