Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The chances 9-11 happened they way they said is one chance in a

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did
his own brief statistical analysis regarding the NIST report for
their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan's estimate is that the
probability that fires and damage (the "official theory") could
cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion,
and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of
WTC7 is included:

To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], 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
[for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with
several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception
of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason
to invade the few most strategically important lands for the
production of oil and natural gas…" (Ryan, 2005).

Severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the
Flight 93 aircraft on 9-11

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural
area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is
that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone
has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the
norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell
phone will not be able to

1. Contact a tower,
2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is,
3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and
4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a
five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake,
takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon
initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or
cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses
when it is turned on.

At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range
of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can
occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and
landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were
impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.

Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down

Anyone planning such an attack could easily find out, with just a
modicum of research on the web, that standard operating procedures
would lead to interception by a fighter jet within about 20 minutes
of any airliner hijacked in the northeast corridor. By choosing
originating airports over one hundred miles from their targets in
three of four cases, and waiting for nearly a half hour in all four
cases before taking over the flights, the perpetrators exposed the
entire plot to certain interruption had the air defense system
operated normally. The only plausible explanation is that the
perpetrators were aware that the air defense system would be stood

Comment: Why: to fly into radar holes:

How did the 9-11 hijackers know about the radar holes?

What we have discovered is that whoever planned and implemented 9-11
must have had detailed knowledge of both the NORAD and FAA radar
coverage. They cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that
only the US Military and the FAA should have been aware of. The 9-11
commission only skimmed the surface of these issues, using them as a
means to draw blame away from the FAA and NORAD.
Another important question is why the hijackers took such long
illogical routes to get to their targets. Why, for example, was
Flight 93 not crashed into the World Trade Centre, which was in
sight of the airport?

Analysis of the flight paths reveals the possibility that the planes
were switched for substitute "drone" planes, operated by remote
control and loaded with explosives to cause maximum damage.

The FAA claimed they saw the aircraft on radar, circling and
descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Where is the data?
What radar imagery couldn't be discerned by human eyes in real-time
was available for later review, and documentation - whether FAA or
military radar data.

As George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), pointed out, NONE of
the "found" parts have part numbers or serial numbers on them; not
at the Pentagon and not at Pennsylvania! For production control,
manufacturers stamp such 'part' numbers on virtually EVERY piece of
an aircraft. Someone went to a lot of trouble to 'sanitize' the 9-11
pieces. Anyone with experience around aircraft accidents will cite
the total lack of serial-numbered parts as IMPOSSIBLE.

The fire in the South tower was not that big:
A firefighter reached the 78 floor: Seven minutes before the
collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've
got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down
with two lines."

Photo of a person standing in the hole of the North Tower caused by
a jet aircraft. But the official story is that the fire was hot
enought to melt steal beam.

As time progressed the fires in at least the South Tower appeared to
diminish greatly in severity. This was probably due to most of the
jet fuel being exhausted within a few minutes of the impacts.

Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of
uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-
starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal
capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

Few reports mentioned that in the South Tower strike, most of the
fuel probably burned up in the impact fireball. The basic facts of
metallurgy and chemistry are that a jet fuel fires could not have
produced fires hot enough to melt steel, with its 1535 C melting
point, when it normally requires pressurized air (a blast furnace)
to achieve temperatures much over 825? In all likelihood the fires
were nowhere near that theoretical maximum, which requires optimal
air mixing, and the hottest temperatures in the steel would be far
below the fire temperatures.

Fire-induced column failure collapse theories assume scenarios in
which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at
temperatures of over 800º C. There are several problems with such

800º C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons
burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air.
Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed
(blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse
flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.
Widespread fires reaching 700º C would have caused extensive window
breakage and would have made the steel glow red-hot. No such events
were observed. 1
Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of
columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of
the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core
structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns,
fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel
in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not
even consume entire floors of either tower.
Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because
the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one
of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.
Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the
apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from
any air supply.
As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the
columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to
elevated temperatures.
Even if such hot and widespread fires existed, they would still be
unlikely to cause failures of the columns in either of the towers.

The incompatibility of any fire-triggered column-failure scenario
with the observed characteristics of the fires created the need for
the truss theory.

Theory Invented to Sidestep Problems With Column Failure Theory

Each floor was designed to support at least five times the weight of
two floors falling down on them. The Truss theory proponents hold
that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without
mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been
true in the event of a 140 mph wind ( or hurricane) , but not on a
calm day.

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given
by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible.

Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsore

d Reports and
Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by
hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520 F (825 C). When
the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have
been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have
significantly decreased.

Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500 F
hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven
days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the
twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep
in their wreckage?

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees

Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed
energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones

photo of cooled steal after it melted and dripped down a couple
beams: :

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the
basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7

3. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7

4. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions

In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its
own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This
feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good]
option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building
before the other columns so that the building's sides fall
inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major
support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper
stories… [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting
in "progressive collapse"-- this is common in controlled
demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

5. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and

Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01

The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Comment: The other information stated the above sourse/website is
wrong. Read down to the comment by the retired airlines pilot who
states this fact. Note: The MO of good disinformation is to mix a
few bits a false information with a lot of true information. Below
is another alleged reason for the remote control flying of the 9-11
jets. By the way, two 737s hit the twin towers, not a wide body 767.

No 757 hit the Pentagon: (a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused
virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of
impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the
scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing
through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found
were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas
A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger
Boeing 757.

o Diffuser case (A-3 type) found in Pentagon wreckage

o Another component found at the Pentagon was a wheel hub--a type
made by B.F.Goodrich's aerospace division. A-3 wheel hub: radius
and wheel width about the same

o A-3 Tire--Rear tire from a carrier-based military aircraft--not a
commercial jetliner

o "Only the Raytheon executives and the Air Force would have known
which team installed a particular system on the A-3 and who was
involved in the operation," Coincidentally, five key Raytheon
executives died on 9-11:

(FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the
few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet
very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American
Airlines Boeing 757.


Attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Hoaxes promoted by the book, 9/11 Revealed, have long been used to
marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by
9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it
dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion
and falsehoods to counter serious claims. 9/11 truth community has
been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY
NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the

or the best of N&V at


No comments: