Kevin Ryan
Some simple responses to the transcript.
Predetermined Conclusion
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about 9/11: fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse. Many thought that this was the most obvious explanation. The problem is that we were not aware of all of the evidence, therefore our conclusions were predetermined.
His opening thought is that the outcome was predetermined. This is false since the pancake theory was first conclusion. Progressive collapse was not part of the theory until near the end and was validated with the model.
Models are often used for recreation of events and also for design. They also used video evidence to check to the outcome of the model.
Sap 2000 and other modeling software is used for complexing loads and structures during building design. My wife uses it at work.
The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started. More amazingly, NIST can’t even prove how the collapse started. NIST abandoned the pancake theory40 so they have no collapse theory—only a vague statement for why the towers completely collapsed.
The model proved that the collapse started by progressive collapse instigated by high heat and the yield failure of beams. He must have missed it.
Molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.43 Jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.44 NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."45 Therefore, logic dictates that something else melted the steel. NIST ignores this evidence.46
I’m not a structural engineer, but if the steel supporting a building melts47 wouldn’t you think that it is worth mentioning somewhere in a 10,00048 page, 43 volume investigation?49 NIST doesn’t think so—they call this evidence “irrelevant to the investigation!”50 Bush science ignores relevant evidence of which this an outrageous
Obviously and he obviously didn't ask any either. There is also an explaniation for the melted steel in Oct 8 FAQ.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htmContradictory Evidence Ignored
Look at references, they aren't referncing the NIST report yet they claim to. Strange
Laws of Physics Contradicted
The two people Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones are comparing the Pancaking of a building versus a progressive collapse. They don't understand the difference.
Deceptive Experiments
The shot gun blast was to mimic small part of the plan impact the beams at a high rate of speed. This test was not deceptive unless you already have your own theory.
Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence
The NIST report in summary:
Predetermined conclusion contradicted by building designer claims, unreleased computer simulations, exaggerated computer data, contradictory steel testing results, contradicted laws of physics, contradicting fireproofing tests, contradicting eye-witness testimony, deceptive experiments, relevant evidence ignored, destruction of relevant evidence, fabricated evidence, and the essential point of the investigation left unanswered—why did the World Trade Center towers completely collapse? Does the NIST study prove anything besides the fact that there was fire and relatively minor structural damage86 in the WTC twin towers?
This statement is patently false. Including the fact that Kevin Ryan ignores the whole progressive collapse theory and other data.
BTW transcripts are great.
